Engineering Documentation MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

document_api

Extract and document all API endpoints from a repository. Returns structured list with methods, paths, handlers, and auth requirements.

Instructions

Extract and document all API endpoints from a repository. Returns a structured list of endpoints with methods, paths, handlers, and auth requirements.

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": {
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>"
    },
    "name": "document_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo_path`	Yes	Path to the repository.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states what the tool returns ('structured list of endpoints with methods, paths, handlers, and auth requirements'), which clarifies behavior. It does not mention side effects, but the return-focused wording suggests a read-only operation.

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?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second summarizes the output format. No unnecessary filler.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and expected output. It could be more complete with usage context or constraints, but it is adequate for selecting the tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'repo_path' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Extract and document') and the resource ('API endpoints from a repository'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_repository or generate_project_documentation by focusing on API endpoint discovery.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context that this tool is for API endpoint extraction from a repository, implying it is for that purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server