Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
ReAPI-com

MCP OpenAPI Server

by ReAPI-com
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

@reapi/mcp-openapi

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that loads and serves multiple OpenAPI specifications to enable LLM-powered IDE integrations. This server acts as a bridge between your OpenAPI specifications and LLM-powered development tools like Cursor and other code editors.

Features

  • Loads multiple OpenAPI specifications from a directory

  • Exposes API operations and schemas through MCP protocol

  • Enables LLMs to understand and work with your APIs directly in your IDE

  • Supports dereferenced schemas for complete API context

  • Maintains a catalog of all available APIs

Related MCP server: @lex-tools/codebase-context-dumper

Powered by ReAPI

This open-source MCP server is sponsored by ReAPI, a next-generation API platform that simplifies API design and testing. While this server provides local OpenAPI integration for development, ReAPI offers two powerful modules:

🎨 API CMS

  • Design APIs using an intuitive no-code editor

  • Generate and publish OpenAPI specifications automatically

  • Collaborate with team members in real-time

  • Version control and change management

🧪 API Testing

  • The most developer-friendly no-code API testing solution

  • Create and manage test cases with an intuitive interface

  • Powerful assertion and validation capabilities

  • Serverless cloud test executor

  • Perfect for both QA teams and developers

  • CI/CD integration ready

Try ReAPI for free at reapi.com and experience the future of API development.

Cursor Configuration

To integrate the MCP OpenAPI server with Cursor IDE, you have two options for configuration locations:

Option 1: Project-specific Configuration (Recommended)

Create a .cursor/mcp.json file in your project directory. This option is recommended as it allows you to maintain different sets of specs for different projects

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "@reapi/mcp-openapi": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@reapi/mcp-openapi@latest", "--dir", "./specs"],
      "env": {}
    }
  }
}

Tip: Using a relative path like ./specs makes the configuration portable and easier to share across team members.

Note: We recommend using @latest tag as we frequently update the server with new features and improvements.

Important: Project-specific configuration helps manage LLM context limits. When all specifications are placed in a single folder, the combined metadata could exceed the LLM's context window, leading to errors. Organizing specs by project keeps the context size manageable.

Option 2: Global Configuration

Create or edit ~/.cursor/mcp.json in your home directory to make the server available across all projects:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "@reapi/mcp-openapi": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@reapi/mcp-openapi@latest", "--dir", "/path/to/your/specs"],
      "env": {}
    }
  }
}

Enable in Cursor Settings

After adding the configuration:

  1. Open Cursor IDE

  2. Go to Settings > Cursor Settings > MCP

  3. Enable the @reapi/mcp-openapi server

  4. Click the refresh icon next to the server to apply changes

Note: By default, Cursor requires confirmation for each MCP tool execution. If you want to allow automatic execution without confirmation, you can enable Yolo mode in Cursor settings.

The server is now ready to use. When you add new OpenAPI specifications to your directory, you can refresh the catalog by:

  1. Opening Cursor's chat panel

  2. Typing one of these prompts:

    "Please refresh the API catalog"
"Reload the OpenAPI specifications"

OpenAPI Specification Requirements

  1. Place your OpenAPI 3.x specifications in the target directory:

    • Supports both JSON and YAML formats

    • Files should have .json, .yaml, or .yml extensions

    • Scanner will automatically discover and process all specification files

  2. Specification ID Configuration:

    • By default, the filename (without extension) is used as the specification ID

    • To specify a custom ID, add x-spec-id in the OpenAPI info object:

    openapi: 3.0.0
info:
  title: My API
  version: 1.0.0
  x-spec-id: my-custom-api-id  # Custom specification ID

    Important: Setting a custom x-spec-id is crucial when working with multiple specifications that have:

    • Similar or identical endpoint paths

    • Same schema names

    • Overlapping operation IDs

    The spec ID helps distinguish between these similar resources and prevents naming conflicts. For example:

    # user-service.yaml
info:
  x-spec-id: user-service
paths:
  /users:
    get: ...

# admin-service.yaml
info:
  x-spec-id: admin-service
paths:
  /users:
    get: ...

    Now you can reference these endpoints specifically as user-service/users and admin-service/users

How It Works

  1. The server scans the specified directory for OpenAPI specification files

  2. It processes and dereferences the specifications for complete context

  3. Creates and maintains a catalog of all API operations and schemas

  4. Exposes this information through the MCP protocol

  5. IDE integrations can then use this information to:

    • Provide API context to LLMs

    • Enable intelligent code completion

    • Assist in API integration

    • Generate API-aware code snippets

Tools

  1. refresh-api-catalog

    • Refresh the API catalog

    • Returns: Success message when catalog is refreshed

  2. get-api-catalog

    • Get the API catalog, the catalog contains metadata about all openapi specifications, their operations and schemas

    • Returns: Complete API catalog with all specifications, operations, and schemas

  3. search-api-operations

    • Search for operations across specifications

    • Inputs:

      • query (string): Search query

      • specId (optional string): Specific API specification ID to search within

    • Returns: Matching operations from the API catalog

  4. search-api-schemas

    • Search for schemas across specifications

    • Inputs:

      • query (string): Search query

      • specId (optional string): Specific API specification ID to search

    • Returns: Matching schemas from the API catalog

  5. load-api-operation-by-operationId

    • Load an operation by operationId

    • Inputs:

      • specId (string): API specification ID

      • operationId (string): Operation ID to load

    • Returns: Complete operation details

  6. load-api-operation-by-path-and-method

    • Load an operation by path and method

    • Inputs:

      • specId (string): API specification ID

      • path (string): API endpoint path

      • method (string): HTTP method

    • Returns: Complete operation details

  7. load-api-schema-by-schemaName

    • Load a schema by schemaName

    • Inputs:

      • specId (string): API specification ID

      • schemaName (string): Name of the schema to load

    • Returns: Complete schema details

Roadmap

  1. Semantic Search

    • Enable natural language queries for API operations and schemas

    • Improve search accuracy with semantic understanding

  2. Remote Specs Sync

    • Support syncing OpenAPI specifications from remote sources

  3. Code Templates

    • Expose code templates through MCP protocol

    • Provide reference patterns for LLM code generation

  4. Community Contributions

    • Submit feature requests and bug reports

    • Contribute to improve the server

Example Prompts in Cursor

Here are some example prompts you can use in Cursor IDE to interact with your APIs:

  1. Explore Available APIs

    "Show me all available APIs in the catalog with their operations"
"List all API specifications and their endpoints"

  2. API Operation Details

    "Show me the details of the create pet API endpoint"
"What are the required parameters for creating a new pet?"
"Explain the response schema for the pet creation endpoint"

  3. Schema and Mock Data

    "Generate mock data for the Pet schema"
"Create a valid request payload for the create pet endpoint"
"Show me examples of valid pet objects based on the schema"

  4. Code Generation

    "Generate an Axios client for the create pet API"
"Create a TypeScript interface for the Pet schema"
"Write a React hook that calls the create pet endpoint"

  5. API Integration Assistance

    "Help me implement error handling for the pet API endpoints"
"Generate unit tests for the pet API client"
"Create a service class that encapsulates all pet-related API calls"

  6. Documentation and Usage

    "Show me example usage of the pet API with curl"
"Generate JSDoc comments for the pet API client methods"
"Create a README section explaining the pet API integration"

  7. Validation and Types

    "Generate Zod validation schema for the Pet model"
"Create TypeScript types for all pet-related API responses"
"Help me implement request payload validation for the pet endpoints"

  8. API Search and Discovery

    "Find all endpoints related to pet management"
"Show me all APIs that accept file uploads"
"List all endpoints that return paginated responses"

These prompts demonstrate how to leverage the MCP server's capabilities for API development. Feel free to adapt them to your specific needs or combine them for more complex tasks.

Contributing

Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.

Available Tools

7 tools
get-api-catalogB

Get the API catalog, the catalog contains metadata about all openapi specifications, their operations and schemas

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metadata but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the API catalog') and adds clarifying details about the catalog's contents. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from content explanation.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but omits behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, response format, error handling) and doesn't reference sibling tools. For a tool in a context with multiple related tools and no structured safety hints, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information, but since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('API catalog'), and it explains what the catalog contains (metadata about OpenAPI specifications, operations, and schemas). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'refresh-api-catalog' (which might update the catalog) or 'search-api-operations' (which might filter operations), so it doesn't reach a score of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'refresh-api-catalog' for updating the catalog or 'search-api-operations' for filtering operations, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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

load-api-operation-by-operationIdD

Load an operation by operationId

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specIdYes
operationIdYes

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level ('load an operation') without explaining what 'loading' entails operationally—whether it's a read-only fetch, requires authentication, has side effects, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification, as it omits necessary details for effective tool use. While structurally efficient, it prioritizes conciseness over completeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (2 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, return values, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool that likely interacts with an API catalog or specification system, this minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding its role and usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter (specId, operationId) is documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'specId' or 'operationId' represent, their expected formats, or examples. With two required parameters and zero coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters semantically opaque.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Load an operation by operationId' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'load' and resource 'operation' but lacks specificity about what an 'operation' represents in this context or what 'loading' entails. Compared to siblings like 'search-api-operations' or 'load-api-schema-by-schemaName', it doesn't clearly differentiate its unique scope or purpose beyond the basic name.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for when this is appropriate, or contrast with sibling tools like 'load-api-operation-by-path-and-method' or 'search-api-operations'. Without any usage context, an agent must infer when to select this tool based solely on the name and schema.

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

load-api-operation-by-path-and-methodC

Load an operation by path and method

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specIdYes
pathYes
methodYes

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Load' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, what happens on failure (e.g., if path/method not found), rate limits, or the return format. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with parameters.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Load an operation by path and method', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but for this dimension alone, it's efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple siblings, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's context (e.g., API specifications), parameter details, expected output, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description mentions 'by path and method', which hints at two parameters, but doesn't explain the three parameters (specId, path, method) or their meanings. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate—it doesn't clarify what specId refers to, the format of path/method, or examples of usage.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Load an operation by path and method' states a clear verb ('Load') and resource ('operation'), but it's vague about what type of operation and lacks differentiation from siblings like 'load-api-operation-by-operationId' or 'search-api-operations'. It doesn't specify if this is for API specifications, OpenAPI operations, or another context.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'load-api-operation-by-operationId' (using operationId) and 'search-api-operations' (searching), there's no indication of when path/method lookup is preferred over other methods, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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

load-api-schema-by-schemaNameC

Load a schema by schemaName

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specIdYes
schemaNameYes

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'load' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use, slightly reducing its utility despite the clean structure.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to reliably select or invoke this tool, especially compared to more detailed alternatives in the toolset.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'schemaName' but doesn't explain what 'specId' is or how these parameters relate to the loading process. It adds minimal value beyond naming one parameter, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Load a schema by schemaName' states the basic action (load) and resource (schema), but is vague about what 'load' means in this context (e.g., retrieve, fetch, display). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-api-schemas' or 'get-api-catalog', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search-api-schemas' and 'get-api-catalog', the description lacks any context about prerequisites, specific use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

refresh-api-catalogC

Refresh the API catalog

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Refresh' implies a mutation or update operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is a read-only refresh, requires permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. It lacks details on what 'refresh' does beyond the basic action.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Refresh the API catalog'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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?

Given the complexity implied by 'refresh' (likely a mutation) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during refresh, the response format, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, this is acceptable, warranting a baseline score of 4 for adequate coverage in this context.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Refresh the API catalog' states a clear action ('refresh') on a specific resource ('API catalog'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-api-catalog' or explain what 'refresh' entails operationally, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-api-catalog' or other siblings. There's no mention of prerequisites, frequency, or context for refreshing, so the agent must infer usage without explicit direction.

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

search-api-operationsC

Search for operations across specifications

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
specIdNo

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It doesn't describe what 'search' entails (e.g., fuzzy matching, exact terms), the format of results, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a search tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, results, and differentiation from siblings, failing to provide enough context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'query' should contain (e.g., keywords, operation names) or what 'specId' refers to (e.g., API specification identifiers), leaving both parameters semantically undefined beyond their types.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Search for operations across specifications' clearly states the action (search) and target (operations), but it's vague about scope and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'search-api-schemas' or 'get-api-catalog'. It doesn't specify what constitutes an 'operation' or how this search differs from other search tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-api-schemas' or 'load-api-operation-by-operationId', leaving the agent with no usage context.

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

search-api-schemasC

Search for schemas across specifications

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
specIdNo

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches but doesn't explain what 'search' entails—whether it's fuzzy matching, exact matches, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or return values, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'search for schemas' but doesn't explain what 'query' or 'specId' parameters mean, their formats, or how they interact. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Search for') and resource ('schemas across specifications'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'search-api-operations', which searches for operations rather than schemas, so it misses the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'load-api-schema-by-schemaName' or 'search-api-operations'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 7 tool updates
    • First observedget-api-catalog
    • First observedload-api-operation-by-operationId
    • First observedload-api-operation-by-path-and-method
    • First observedload-api-schema-by-schemaName
    • First observedrefresh-api-catalog
    • First observedsearch-api-operations
    • First observedsearch-api-schemas
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. For example, get-api-catalog retrieves metadata, load-api-operation-by-operationId and load-api-operation-by-path-and-method load operations via different identifiers, load-api-schema-by-schemaName loads schemas, refresh-api-catalog updates the catalog, and search-api-operations and search-api-schemas perform distinct searches. The descriptions clarify each tool's unique function, preventing misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens, such as get-api-catalog, load-api-operation-by-operationId, and search-api-schemas. This predictability makes the set easy to navigate and understand, with no deviations in naming style across the seven tools.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing OpenAPI specifications. Each tool earns its place by covering essential operations like retrieving, loading, refreshing, and searching metadata, schemas, and operations, without being overly sparse or bloated for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is nearly complete for interacting with OpenAPI specifications, covering catalog retrieval, operation and schema loading, catalog refreshing, and searching. A minor gap exists in lacking direct update or delete operations for specifications, but agents can work around this by refreshing or reloading as needed, and core workflows are well-supported.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ReAPI-com/mcp-openapi'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server