Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
API Monitor MCP

API Monitor MCP

by zxcvbbq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

capture_list_apis

Retrieve resolved API definitions sorted by saved call frequency to identify high-usage endpoints.

Instructions

List resolved API definitions ordered by saved call frequency.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "capture_list_apis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
file_pathYes
max_recordsNo
process_indexNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.26

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only discloses the sort order. It says nothing about pagination, whether results are read-only, what 'resolved' means operationally, or how file_path interacts with the capture session.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the ordering rule front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a four-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves most of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly unstated.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The required file_path and the limit/max_records/process_index controls are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and interaction.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (list) and resource (resolved API definitions) plus an ordering rule, which sets it apart from siblings like capture_list_entries and capture_list_directory. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 api_monitor_search_apis or capture_list_entries, and no stated prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools