Retrieve all API endpoints for a specific tag or category from Sage Intacct REST API documentation. Use list-tags to see available tags, then get endpoints by exact tag name.
Get all API endpoints for a specific tag/category. Use list-tags first to see available tags. Example: tag="Accounts Payable"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | Tag name (exact match, case-sensitive) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves all endpoints for a tag, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose possible pagination, return format, or performance implications. This is a minor gap for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
Two concise sentences plus an example, with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite instruction is immediately actionable.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the prerequisite, provides an example, and the tool name clarifies the returned resource. It does not describe the output structure, but no output schema exists and the meaning of 'endpoints' is reasonably inferable.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already provides exact-match and case-sensitivity details. The description adds an example and the tag/category framing but does not significantly extend the schema's semantics.
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 ('Get') and resource ('all API endpoints') scoped to a tag/category, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like search-endpoints or get-endpoint-docs. The example tag further anchors the intended use.
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?
It explicitly instructs to call list-tags first to discover available tags, which is a clear prerequisite. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.