Retrieve parameter and return value types for any API endpoint by specifying its path and HTTP method. Provides direct Swagger/OpenAPI type details for AI assistants.
获取指定接口的参数和返回值类型信息
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | 接口路径，如 /api/channelType/list | |
| method | Yes | HTTP 方法，如 GET, POST, PUT, DELETE |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool retrieves parameter and return-type information; it does not mention read-only behavior, authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or response structure. The description is not misleading, but it reveals very little beyond the core action.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the target information. No filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail—ideal for a simple two-parameter lookup tool.
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 basic retrieval tool, the description covers the main purpose and mentions return-type information, while the schema fully handles parameters. However, with no annotations and no usage alternatives or behavioral caveats, there are notable gaps: when to choose this over getApis and what the exact response contains. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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 for parameters is 100%, and both path and method have descriptive property definitions. The description adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema, since '指定接口' already implies the path/method combination. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.
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 '获取指定接口的参数和返回值类型信息' states a clear action (获取) and resource (指定接口的参数和返回值类型信息), so an agent knows this tool retrieves parameter and return-type details for a specific API. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the phrase '指定接口' implies a single-API lookup, giving some implicit differentiation from getApis and getModules.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus getApis or getModules, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and description, leaving the choice between getApi and getApis ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.