Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@mhdd_24/api-scenario-mcp

@mhdd_24/api-scenario-mcp

by Mhdd-24
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

apiscen_generate

Turn a business goal and known endpoints into a complete multi-step API workflow.

Instructions

Generate a multi-step API workflow.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "goal": "<goal>"
    },
    "name": "apiscen_generate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesBusiness goal
endpointsNoKnown endpoints

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It does not reveal whether generation is synchronous, whether it creates a persisted artifact, what the return value looks like, or if there are side effects. The phrase 'multi-step API workflow' hints at the output shape but nothing more.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the tool's core action, though it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the generated workflow looks like' or how the result is returned. It also does not connect to the sibling tools. The current description leaves too many gaps for an agent to confidently consume the output or integrate the tool into a larger process.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the two parameters (goal and endpoints) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters influence the generated workflow, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Generate') and a concrete resource ('multi-step API workflow'), which clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (apiscen_status, apiscen_to_http). It is not a tautology and gives a basic idea of the function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 apiscen_status or apiscen_to_http. The description simply states what it does; it never mentions alternatives, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools