apex_run_agent_api_contract_diffRun the allowlisted permissionless bounded API contract diff over supplied before/after endpoint lists. DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required; no route discovery, source reads, or network access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| before | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: 'DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required; no route discovery, source reads, or network access.' This clarifies permissionless operation and constraints beyond the 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs all essential information without fluff. Every word adds value: scope, safety, permissions, and explicit exclusions.
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 two-parameter read-only diff tool, the description covers purpose, safety, and constraints. There is no output schema, but the description's mention of 'DATA ONLY' and 'diff' implies a data-returning operation. It lacks explicit return format details, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.
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 must compensate. It identifies 'before' and 'after' as endpoint lists, giving meaning to both parameters. However, it does not specify the structure of list items or the expected format for endpoints, leaving some ambiguity for a zero-coverage schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: running an API contract diff over supplied before/after endpoint lists. The verb 'Run' and resource 'API contract diff' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like apex_run_agent_secret_scanner or apex_run_agent_dockerfile_lint.
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 provides context on when to use this tool (for diffing supplied endpoint lists) and explicitly excludes other activities (no route discovery, source reads, or network access). It does not name alternative tools, but the name and scope strongly differentiate it from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions provide sufficient boundaries. Some run_* analytics tools (e.g., deflated_sharpe vs empyrical_metrics) could be conceptually confused, but their specific inputs and outputs minimize ambiguity.
All tools share the apex_ prefix, and the verb_noun pattern is consistent (get, query, run, submit). The 'agent_' subgroup within run tools introduces a minor irregularity, but it remains readily comprehensible.
With 24 tools, the server is on the heavy side, falling into the 16-25 range. Many run_* tools are similar in nature (pure calculations), but each appears to serve a specific purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The server name implies a card store, yet the tool surface only supports reading and querying cards, with no create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap that prevents full lifecycle management, though the analytics side is fairly comprehensive.