rest_api_mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: automatic login handling, token expiration management, and the response structure including 'login_data' with IDs like 'pharmacyId'. It covers authentication flow and output format, though it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or side effects like data modification for write methods.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and key behavior (authenticated API call with auto-login). The second sentence details the return value. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (handles authentication, multiple HTTP methods, and returns structured data) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers authentication behavior and response format but omits details on error handling, side effects for write operations, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a general-purpose API tool, more context on safety and usage boundaries would improve completeness.

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 documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics, only implying that 'body' is for POST/PUT/PATCH methods and 'skip_auth' bypasses Authorization headers. This provides some context but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's detailed descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Makes an authenticated API call' with automatic login handling. It specifies the verb ('makes') and resource ('authenticated API call'), distinguishing it from generic HTTP tools by mentioning authentication. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_spec' or 'search_endpoints', which might also involve API interactions.

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 implies usage for authenticated API calls with automatic token renewal, suggesting it's for endpoints requiring auth. It mentions 'skip_auth' for public endpoints, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'fetch_spec' or 'search_endpoints', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond auth handling.

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