Update API endpoints checklist to reflect actual implementation

[jlwainwright]

Summary

• Updated API endpoints checklist to accurately reflect the current implementation status
• Marked 9 additional endpoints as implemented that were missing ✅ markers
• Corrected implementation statistics

Changes Made

• Circuits Module: Marked circuit-terminations, circuit-types, and provider-networks as implemented
• Extras Module: Marked config-contexts, custom-fields, export-templates, image-attachments, saved-filters, and scripts as implemented
• Statistics: Updated from 70 to 76 implemented endpoints (54% of collection endpoints)

Verification

• Cross-referenced with NETBOX_OBJECT_TYPES mapping in server.py
• All marked endpoints have corresponding entries in the server implementation

Test plan

• Verified all marked endpoints exist in server.py NETBOX_OBJECT_TYPES mapping
• Updated implementation statistics are mathematically correct
• Documentation formatting and links are preserved

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[beevek]

Thank you - while I get the basic idea of capturing coverage in a doc like this, I don't quite think API coverage is the right measure for an MCP server. It looks like the approach here is to cross reference the NetBox core data model with the tool descriptions in the MCP server for coverage analysis. Ultimately I think we'll start to describe less in the tool descriptions, rely more on LLM knowledge or introspection of the data model, and coverage will be mostly "dynamic" (i.e., new data models added to NetBox will be accessible via MCP without direct instruction changes in the MCP server). We have some planned work to incorporate learnings from NetBox Copilot into the MCP server along these lines. So for those reasons I'm going to close this one for now.