List all API endpoints available in an OpenAPI spec. Filter by section or project to narrow results.
List all available API endpoints
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | Filter by section/tag name | |
| 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name: no mention of filtering, ordering, pagination, or the shape of the returned listing. With no output schema, the agent gets no additional insight into what happens when this tool is invoked.
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, tight sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and resource, earning its place entirely.
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 two-optional-parameter list tool, the combination of the one-sentence description, full schema documentation, and safety annotations is mostly sufficient. The only minor gap is the lack of an output schema and no description of the return value structure, but 'List all available API endpoints' conveys the expected result adequately for invocation.
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 both section and projectId are already fully documented in the structured data. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but since the schema carries the burden, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. There is no need for the description to repeat what the schema already states.
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 ('List') and a clear resource ('all available API endpoints'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_endpoint (which implies a single endpoint) and list_sdks (which lists SDKs). No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.
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 alternatives like get_endpoint or search_docs. The description gives no explicit conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings. This is a significant gap for a tool that could easily be confused with get_endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.