Lists all API endpoints within a specified section, returning method, path, safety class, and summary for each.
List all endpoints in one section.
Args: section: section name (see hh_list_sections), e.g. "statistics". Returns JSON list of {operation_id, method, path, safety, summary}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description additionally specifies the output shape and the 'one section' scoping, which adds some value but does not discuss error handling, pagination, or edge cases. That is acceptable given the tool's simple read-only nature.
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 two compact sentences plus a brief Args section. The purpose is front-loaded, parameter guidance is concise, and the output shape is stated in one line with no wasted words.
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?
With one simple parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: which tool to use to get the param value, and what the result looks like. It doesn't mention invalid section behavior, but that is manage in normal MCP error messages and doesn't impair the ability to call the tool correctly.
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 is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the single `section` parameter. It compensates well by giving the meaning, an example, and a pointer to hh_list_sections for the authoritative list of values.
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 opens with 'List all endpoints in one section' – a specific verb (list), a concrete resource (endpoints), and a narrowed scope (one section). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like hh_describe_method (single method) and hh_search_methods (search-based).
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 gives clear context: the tool enumerates endpoints in a single section, and it explicitly points the agent to hh_list_sections for valid section names. It stops short of naming alternative tools for other use cases (e.g., hh_describe_method for one endpoint), but the implied usage is straightforward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.