google.api.describeRetrieve a Google API method’s parameters and request body fields, including location, required status, pattern, and enum values, to validate and construct accurate API calls.
One method's parameters (location, required, pattern, enum) and request body fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api | Yes | ||
| method | Yes | ||
| version | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds that it returns a single method's parameter details and request body fields, but does not mention any other behavioral traits such as lookup constraints or required API/method formats.
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 a single compact sentence with no wasted wording. Its terseness is efficient, though the fragmented noun-phrase style slightly reduces immediate clarity.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be exhaustively documented. However, with no schema descriptions for the three inputs and no sibling differentiation, the description is not complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.
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%, so the description must explain the three input parameters. It does not clarify what `api`, `method`, or `version` should contain, and the listed fields (location, required, pattern, enum) appear to describe returned metadata rather than the input parameters.
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 identifies a specific resource and scope: one method's parameter metadata and request body fields. It implies the describe operation and is distinguishable from list/methods siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb and the phrasing is slightly terse.
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 google.api.describe versus google.api.read, google.api.methods, google.api.list, or google.api.call. The agent must infer the intended usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.