get_endpointFetch the full contract for one API endpoint or webhook by operationId, METHOD /path, or webhook name, with schemas inlined.
Full contract of one endpoint by operationId (e.g. sendOrderToErp, uploadOrder, upsertCustomer) or "METHOD /path", or a webhook name (erpReceiveOrder, processingCompleted). Schemas are inlined.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: schemas are inlined, so the response is self-contained and potentially large. It says nothing about behavior on an unresolvable ref, error semantics, or explicitly that it is a read-only lookup.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the three identifier formats. Every example earns its place by removing ambiguity about the ref argument.
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 one-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input contract and the shape of the return ('schemas are inlined') adequately. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the many sibling lookup tools.
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 single 'ref' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does, naming three accepted identifier forms (operationId, "METHOD /path", webhook name) with concrete examples. Only the length bounds (2–160) go unmentioned.
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 ('Full contract of one endpoint') and pins down exactly what the tool returns ('schemas are inlined'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_endpoints (enumeration) and get_schema (component schema), which an agent can infer without opening a schema.
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 implied by the examples of accepted identifiers, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus list_endpoints (to discover refs) or get_schema/get_example (for pieces of a contract). No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.