list_endpointsList grouped API services and their routes, or search routes by keywords to locate endpoints relevant to a task.
Lists the API's services in their groups; with a service, its routes; with words, the routes that match them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Words to find a route by, such as "follow a group" | |
| service | No | A service, such as "auth" or "socialgraph-service" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the response shape changes depending on arguments (grouped services, a service's routes, or word-matching routes). It does not clarify what happens when both arguments are supplied, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.
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?
One dense sentence with no filler, and the base case (grouped services) is front-loaded before the narrowing modes. The semicolon-chained clauses are compact but slightly harder to parse than separate sentences would be.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns; it partially does so (groups, routes, matches) but not the structure or pagination. The unstated precedence when both query and service are provided leaves an agent guessing.
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%, so individual parameter meaning is already documented. The description still adds interaction semantics the schema does not state: service narrows to that service's routes, query selects matching routes, and with neither you get grouped services.
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 and resource ('Lists the API's services in their groups') and describes the three result shapes. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like read_endpoint and read_shape by covering the enumeration case, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 'with a service... with words...' phrasing implies how to pick a mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as read_endpoint for fetching a single route. Usage must be inferred from parameter descriptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.