Retrieve detailed specifications for DigitalOcean API endpoints to understand their parameters, responses, and usage requirements for cloud infrastructure management.
Get detailed information about a specific endpoint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operationId | Yes | Operation ID of the endpoint |
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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned information. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how to handle errors, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to fully guide an agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'operationId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond implying it identifies a 'specific endpoint', which is already covered by the schema's description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific endpoint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_endpoints' or 'search_endpoints' beyond the 'specific' qualifier, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_endpoints' or 'search_endpoints'. It mentions 'specific endpoint' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing an operation ID from another source, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.