Retrieve complete listing details and agent metadata for an API by providing its slug.
Fetch full listing detail and agent metadata for a specific Apiosk API slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Apiosk API slug, for example 'agent-json-diff'. |
| 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, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('full listing detail and agent metadata') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs or result filtering.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with not filler or restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes meaning.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only lookup with both input and output schemas present, this description is sufficient. Missing details about response shape are covered by the output schema, and safety is covered by annotations.
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?
The only parameter, 'slug', is fully documented in the input schema at 100% coverage, including an example. The description only repeats the idea of a slug, adding no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full listing detail and agent metadata') scoped by slug. It clearly indicates this is a detail lookup for a single API, distinguishing it from list/search/explore siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 'for aspecific Apiosk API slug' clause conveys an implied use case: call when you already have a slug and need full details rather than browsing or searching. It does not explicitly explain when to prefer sibling tools like apiosk_search or apiosk_explore.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.