api_spec_infoInspect OpenAPI spec details: version, age, endpoint counts, groups, security schemes with credential status, and changes from previous version.
Spec version and age, counts, groups, security schemes with credential status, and changes since the previous version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No | Revalidate the spec now |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation — it describes a read of spec metadata, so no contradiction. It adds some context beyond the annotation by revealing the tool inspects security-scheme credential status and computes changes since the prior version. However, it does not disclose the refresh/caching behavior implied by the refresh parameter or any implications of exposing credential status.
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 compact sentence of roughly 16 words with zero filler. The content categories are front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place by naming a distinct piece of information the tool returns.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main content areas an agent needs to know. The refresh parameter behavior is left to the schema, and edge details like the meaning of 'changes since the previous version' are unspecified, but nothing essential is missing for a safe, non-destructive info 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% — the single optional boolean refresh parameter is fully documented in the schema with 'Revalidate the spec now'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight; the description neither helps nor hurts here.
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 enumerates specific content categories — spec version, age, counts, groups, security schemes with credential status, and changes since the previous version — which clearly identifies what the tool returns and distinguishes it from siblings like api_schema, api_endpoint, and api_types. However, it lacks an explicit verb and reads as a content inventory rather than a statement of action, which costs it the top score.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its six siblings (api_search, api_endpoint, api_schema, api_types, api_get, api_call_log). There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection from the content list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.