Get the complete OpenAPI description
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | API name | |
| version | No | API version (required when multiple APIs share the same name but differ by version) |
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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false already indicate safety. Description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., response size, auth). No contradictions detected.
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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded purpose. Appropriate length for a simple read tool.
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?
No output schema and description does not explain the return format or any constraints. Adequate for a straightforward read tool but lacks completeness regarding the result.
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 100% with both parameters described. Description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Get the complete OpenAPI description' clearly states the action and resource, but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like get-endpoint-info or get-endpoints, leaving ambiguity about what 'complete' entails.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-endpoint-info or get-endpoints. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of API documentation: listing APIs, retrieving endpoints, endpoint details, full description, security schemes, and search. No functional overlap.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list-apis, get-endpoints, etc.), but 'search' is a single verb, slightly breaking the pattern. Overall naming is clear and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—comprehensive enough without being overwhelming. The number is appropriate for a documentation explorer.
The set covers listing APIs, endpoint details, full spec, security, and search. Minor gaps like endpoint filtering or version comparison exist, but core workflows are well-covered.