api_call_logReview past API calls by endpoint, status, and returned IDs to identify and clean up resources created during exploration.
What api_request has called: endpoint, status and ids from responses — use it to clean up what was created.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile; the description adds that it exposes response IDs for cleanup, but it does not disclose details such as ordering, pagination, or whether older entries are retained. This is adequate but not rich beyond the annotation.
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 compact sentence that packs in what is returned and a usage purpose. The phrasing 'What api_request has called' is slightly awkward, but there is no wasted content.
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 optional-limit read-only log, the description states the returned fields and the intended cleanup workflow. The lack of an output schema makes a few details like list shape or ordering unknown, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.
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 never mentions the limit parameter. The name and schema constraints make limit mostly self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation as required at this coverage level.
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 identifies the tool as a record of what api_request calls have been made, naming endpoint, status, and response IDs, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling search/get tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve,' and 'api_request' is a slightly unclear referent, so it is not a 5.
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 gives a concrete use case: use the call log to clean up what was created. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a simple read-only journal the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.