Get the security schemes for a specific API
| 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 already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the obvious, such as what the returned security schemes contain or how pagination works.
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 with no unnecessary words. Every part is functional.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description could have hinted at return structure or cardinality. It also does not mention the version parameter's requirement scenario, leaving some gaps.
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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 clearly states the action (Get) and resource (security schemes) with a qualifier (for a specific API). It is distinct from sibling tools like get-endpoints or list-apis, which do not involve security schemes.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where other tools would be more appropriate.
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.