Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vigilo MCP Server

Vigilo MCP Server

by fredrsat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

api_get

Explore and map parent API endpoints by sending raw GET requests. Returns status and body for any response, including 404 and 400 errors.

Instructions

Rått GET mot foreldre-API-et — for kartlegging av nye endepunkter.

path: f.eks. "/api/children". params_json: query-parametre som JSON-objekt; userId legges til automatisk om den ikke er satt. Returnerer status og body uansett utfall, så 404/400 også gir informasjon.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "api_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
params_jsonNo{}

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: userId is injected automatically when absent, and status plus body are returned regardless of outcome so 404/400 are still informative. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the raw call can be truncated, but for a passthrough GET wrapper the disclosure is substantial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: purpose and intended usage first, then per-parameter meaning and return behavior. Every clause carries information, and the example path is front-loaded for quick scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be restated, and the description still usefully notes that errors return status+body. The main completeness gap is the absence of any contrast with the nearly identical sibling web_api_get, which matters for a raw-passthrough tool in a family of API wrappers.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: path is given a concrete example and params_json is explained as a JSON object of query parameters with an implicit userId injected when unset. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare "string" schema, though the JSON encoding/escaping of params_json is not spelled out.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: a raw GET against the parent API, explicitly framed for probing/discovering new endpoints, with a concrete path example ("/api/children"). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling web_api_get, which appears to do something very similar.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "for kartlegging av nye endepunkter" gives an implied use case (endpoint exploration rather than routine data fetching). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and no naming of the alternative web_api_get, leaving the agent to guess which of the two GET wrappers to pick.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools