Retrieve Chuck Norris jokes and facts by specifying API endpoint parameters through the Model Context Protocol interface.
请根据 RapidAPI 页面手动添加端点信息
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "api_endpoint"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param | No | 参数 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, persistence, reversibility, or return behavior. For a tool that 'adds' information, there is no indication of what changes occur or what the output looks like.
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?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It earns its place only slightly by mentioning RapidAPI as a source, yet the brevity does not compensate for the lack of meaningful content.
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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, how the parameter relates to the endpoint information, what the expected behavior is, or what the user should observe after invocation.
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?
The schema has one optional parameter 'param' with a description '参数' (parameter), which is tautological and provides no real semantics. The tool description adds nothing about how to use the parameter or what values it expects. Although schema coverage is 100%, the content is useless, and the description does not compensate.
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?
The description 'Please manually add endpoint information based on the RapidAPI page' uses a specific verb ('add') but the resource ('endpoint information') is vague and the phrase reads more like an instruction to a human than a functional tool description. It does not clearly define what the tool actually does or what constitutes endpoint information, making it barely rise above a tautology.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'based on the RapidAPI page' implies a context but does not explicitly state usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.