Fetches a paginated list of service APIs with ordering options. Use to browse available APIs; account permissions and ownership checks apply.
Get services apis. Backend account permissions and ownership checks apply. Required permissions: public
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| ordering | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, but it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: backend account permission scoping and ownership checks, plus the required permission level. It says nothing about pagination behavior though the schema exposes limit/offset, nor about response shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and following with the permission constraint. Nearly no waste, though the phrasing is terse to the point of being under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description leaves the required id parameter's meaning, the pagination parameters, and the distinction from sibling list/get tools entirely unexplained. Inadequate for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the placeholder descriptions (e.g. "acedatacloud_get_services_apis_limit") convey nothing. With 4 parameters — including a required id whose relationship to the resource is undefined — the description adds no semantics at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Get services apis" identifies a resource relationship but is close to a restatement of the tool name, with no verb-level detail about what is being retrieved or scoped. It does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like acedatacloud_list_apis or acedatacloud_get_services_proxies. Purpose is inferable but vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states a permission requirement ("public") but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_apis, get_services_proxies, or the other service/API siblings. No preconditions or exclusions are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.