Extract all API endpoint definitions with methods, paths, and handlers from an API file to map service routes and support test case generation.
Analyze an API file and extract all endpoint definitions with their methods, paths, and handlers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref to read from | |
| filePath | Yes | Path to the API file | |
| serviceName | Yes | Name of the service |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only analysis but never states it, and gives no information about the optional ref semantics, permission requirements, or whether results are cached or scoped to a branch. Significant gaps remain for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and the extracted artifacts with no wasted words. Efficient, though very terse given the absent usage and behavioral context.
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?
There is no output schema or annotation coverage, but the description does name the extracted fields (methods, paths, handlers), which partially compensates. However, it omits ref/branch scoping behavior and any error or permission context, leaving the definition just barely adequate for a 3-parameter 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%, so all three parameters (ref, filePath, serviceName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (Analyze/extract) with a clearly named resource (API file endpoint definitions) and even states the returned fields (methods, paths, handlers). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_api_details or get_api_changes, so it falls short of 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_api_details or get_api_changes, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that a git ref is optional or when to supply one). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.