List permitted student APIs and check which are enabled using a REST token. Filter by access, category, or availability to see active capabilities.
Cataloga APIs de alumno permitidas y, con token REST, cuáles están habilitadas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| access | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| available_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the conditional behavior of providing a REST token to show enabled APIs, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe return format or error handling, so it's adequate but not rich.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes a conditional clause. No wasted words.
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 three optional parameters, but the description does not explain their semantics or how they affect the output. There is no output schema, so the description should describe the return structure, but it only implies a list of capabilities with enabled status. This leaves significant gaps for correct 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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (access, category, available_only). The parameter names alone provide minimal meaning, but the tool cannot be correctly invoked without knowing what these inputs do. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 function: it catalogs permitted student APIs and, with a REST token, indicates which are enabled. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list specific resources (courses, grades, etc.) by focusing on capabilities rather than individual items.
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 mentions a condition ('with REST token') that triggers additional behavior, which serves as a usage prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. The absence of clear exclusions limits the guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.