Explore one Apiosk listing group at a time, then narrow results with search, filters, and sorting.
Browse Apiosk listing groups and explore one group at a time before narrowing with search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | Optional free-text search when listing_type is set. | |
| listing_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description confirms non-mutating browse behavior and adds that it works one group at a time. It doesn't describe pagination, response shape, or limits, but the read-only safety profile is already covered by annotations.
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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded with the core browsing intent, but it is underspecified for a 6-parameter tool with weak schema coverage. It has no wasted words, yet it is not appropriately sized because it omits crucial parameter and usage clues.
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?
Despite having an output schema and annotations that cover safety, the description leaves the agent unsure how to select a group, how pagination and sorting behave, and how this tool differs from the similarly browse-oriented apiosk_discover. It only communicates a high-level exploration intent.
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 only 17%, so the description needs to compensate. It loosely implies a 'listing_type' grouping with 'one group at a time' but never names it, and sort, limit, order, and offset are left completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to parameterize the call.
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?
States a specific action (Browse/explore) against a resource (Apiosk listing groups) and positions it relative to search ('before narrowing with search'). It is less crisp on what 'one group at a time' means and does not name the sibling search tool explicitly, so it is not 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?
Implies the intended sequence: explore first, then narrow with search, which is a clear use context. It doesn't explicitly name apiosk_search as the alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it loses a point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.