Scan a project repository for hardcoded service URLs and clients. Specify the project root path and optional limit to uncover API dependencies for service-to-service mapping.
Find hardcoded service URLs/clients.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | Project root path | |
| limit | No | Max results |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Find" implies a non-mutating scan, but the description does not state that it only analyzes code, whether it modifies anything, how it traverses the project, or what the output represents.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's primary purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse quickly.
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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only a terse one-line description. It does not clarify what a result looks like, whether the scan is recursive, what the default root is, or how it relates to the sibling tools, leaving important context missing.
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 100%, so the schema already explains root and limit. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it does not go beyond the structured fields.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Find hardcoded service URLs/clients." This makes the core operation clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like apidep_status or apidep_map.
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 about when to use this tool versus apidep_status or apidep_map, and no prerequisites or alternative conditions are mentioned. The only implied usage is that this tool scans for hardcoded URLs/clients, but no exclusionary context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.