read_endpointReads a single API route in full, including allowed callers, parameters, request body, and all responses, so agents can answer route-specific questions.
Reads one API route in full: who may call it, its parameters and body, and every answer it gives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The path, as the reference has it ("/actors/{id}") or as it is called ("/actors/12") | |
| method | Yes | GET, POST, PUT, PATCH or DELETE |
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, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a complete view of a single route (permissions, params, body, all responses), but says nothing about behavior for unknown methods/paths or how exact the match must be.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned content without filler. It is efficient, though the enumeration is doing double duty as both scope and return-value summary.
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 rightly sketches what comes back (permissions, parameters/body, responses), and both required params are fully specified in the schema. Only the mismatch/not-found behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap for a two-parameter read tool.
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 method and path are already documented, including the literal-vs-template path forms. The description adds no formatting or matching semantics beyond the schema baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Reads one API route in full') and enumerates the retrieval contents: permissions, parameters/body, and responses. This makes it clearly distinct from list_endpoints and read_doc, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'one ... in full' hints at the detail counterpart to list_endpoints, but the description never says when to prefer this over list_endpoints, read_doc, or read_shape, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.