Retrieve complete documentation for a specific API endpoint using its slug, including details, SDK snippets, and changelogs from an OpenAPI spec.
Get full documentation for a specific API endpoint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The endpoint slug | |
| projectId | No | Project to read. Optional — defaults to the project this server was started with. Only pass it to target a different project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the read nature ('Get'). It is consistent with the annotations and does not contradict them, but it doesn't enhance transparency beyond what structured data already provides.
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, tightly-written sentence: 'Get full documentation for a specific API endpoint.' It wastes no words, is naturally front-loaded, and the core action and object are immediately clear.
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?
For a simple read tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose, and the annotations cover behavioral guarantees. It doesn't detail the return format or edge cases, but that is not critical given the low complexity and the absence of an output schema.
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%, meaning both parameters (slug and projectId) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics or clarifications beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('full documentation for a specific API endpoint'). It clearly indicates the tool retrieves documentation for a single endpoint, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_endpoints (which lists) and search_docs (which searches). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate itself in the text.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for retrieving documentation of a specific endpoint identified by slug, but it doesn't mention when not to use it or point to other tools. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.