en es ja ko zh

MCP OpenAPI Server

Name: MCP OpenAPI Server
Author: ReAPI-com

by ReAPI-com

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

@reapi/mcp-openapi

複数のOpenAPI仕様を読み込み、LLMベースのIDE統合を可能にするモデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバー。このサーバーは、OpenAPI仕様と、CursorなどのLLMベースの開発ツール（その他のコードエディタなど）間の橋渡しとして機能します。

特徴

ディレクトリから複数の OpenAPI 仕様をロードします
MCPプロトコルを通じてAPI操作とスキーマを公開します
LLM が IDE 内で直接 API を理解し、操作できるようにします
完全な API コンテキストのための逆参照スキーマをサポート
利用可能なすべてのAPIのカタログを維持します

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

ReAPIを搭載

このオープンソースのMCPサーバーは、APIの設計とテストを簡素化する次世代APIプラットフォームであるReAPIによって提供されています。このサーバーは開発のためのローカルOpenAPI統合を提供するだけでなく、ReAPIは2つの強力なモジュールも提供しています。

🎨 API CMS

直感的なノーコードエディタを使用して API を設計する
OpenAPI仕様を自動的に生成して公開する
チームメンバーとリアルタイムで共同作業
バージョン管理と変更管理

🧪 API テスト

開発者にとって最も使いやすいノーコードAPIテストソリューション
直感的なインターフェースでテストケースを作成および管理します
強力なアサーションおよび検証機能
サーバーレスクラウドテストエグゼキューター
QAチームと開発者の両方に最適
CI/CD統合対応

reapi.comで ReAPI を無料で試して、API 開発の未来を体験してください。

カーソルの設定

MCP OpenAPI サーバーを Cursor IDE と統合するには、構成場所に 2 つのオプションがあります。

オプション 1: プロジェクト固有の構成 (推奨)

プロジェクトディレクトリに.cursor/mcp.jsonファイルを作成します。このオプションは、プロジェクトごとに異なる仕様セットを管理できるため、推奨されます。

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

ヒント: ./specsのような相対パスを使用すると、構成が移植可能になり、チームメンバー間で共有しやすくなります。
注: 新しい機能や改善点が頻繁にサーバーに反映されるため、 @latestタグを使用することをお勧めします。
重要：プロジェクト固有の設定は、LLMのコンテキスト制限を管理するのに役立ちます。すべての仕様を単一のフォルダに配置すると、結合されたメタデータがLLMのコンテキストウィンドウを超え、エラーが発生する可能性があります。仕様をプロジェクトごとに整理することで、コンテキストのサイズを管理しやすくなります。

オプション2: グローバル構成

サーバーをすべてのプロジェクトで利用できるようにするには、ホームディレクトリに~/.cursor/mcp.jsonを作成または編集します。

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

カーソル設定で有効にする

設定を追加した後:

オープンカーソルIDE
設定 > カーソル設定 > MCP に移動します
@reapi/mcp-openapi サーバーを有効にする
変更を適用するには、サーバーの横にある更新アイコンをクリックします。

注：デフォルトでは、カーソルはMCPツールの実行ごとに確認を求めます。確認なしで自動実行を許可したい場合は、カーソル設定でYoloモードを有効にしてください。

サーバーは使用準備完了です。新しいOpenAPI仕様をディレクトリに追加したら、以下の手順でカタログを更新できます。

カーソルのチャットパネルを開く

次のいずれかのプロンプトを入力します。

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

OpenAPI仕様要件

OpenAPI 3.x 仕様をターゲットディレクトリに配置します。
- JSONとYAMLの両方の形式をサポート
- ファイルの拡張子は.json 、 .yaml 、または.ymlである必要があります。
- スキャナはすべての仕様ファイルを自動的に検出して処理します
仕様ID構成:
- デフォルトでは、ファイル名（拡張子なし）が仕様IDとして使用されます。
- カスタム ID を指定するには、OpenAPI 情報オブジェクトにx-spec-idを追加します。
```
openapi: 3.0.0
info:
  title: My API
  version: 1.0.0
  x-spec-id: my-custom-api-id  # Custom specification ID
```
重要: 以下の複数の仕様を扱う場合には、カスタムx-spec-idを設定することが重要です。
- 類似または同一のエンドポイントパス
- 同じスキーマ名
- 重複する操作ID
スペックIDは、類似したリソースを区別し、名前の競合を防ぐのに役立ちます。例：
# user-service.yaml info: x-spec-id: user-service paths: /users: get: ... # admin-service.yaml info: x-spec-id: admin-service paths: /users: get: ...
これらのエンドポイントを具体的にはuser-service/usersとadmin-service/usersとして参照できるようになりました。

仕組み

サーバーは指定されたディレクトリをスキャンしてOpenAPI仕様ファイルを探します
完全なコンテキストを得るために仕様を処理して逆参照する
すべての API 操作とスキーマのカタログを作成して管理します
この情報をMCPプロトコルを通じて公開します
IDE 統合ではこの情報を使用して次のことが可能になります。
- LLMにAPIコンテキストを提供する
- インテリジェントなコード補完を有効にする
- API統合の支援
- API対応のコードスニペットを生成する

ツール

refresh-api-catalog
- APIカタログを更新する
- 戻り値: カタログが更新されたときの成功メッセージ
get-api-catalog
- APIカタログを取得します。カタログには、すべてのOpenAPI仕様、その操作、スキーマに関するメタデータが含まれています。
- 戻り値: すべての仕様、操作、スキーマを含む完全な API カタログ
search-api-operations
- 仕様間の操作の検索
- 入力:
  - query (文字列): 検索クエリ
  - specId (オプションの文字列): 検索対象となる特定のAPI仕様ID
- 戻り値: APIカタログからの一致する操作
search-api-schemas
- 仕様全体にわたってスキーマを検索する
- 入力:
  - query (文字列): 検索クエリ
  - specId (オプションの文字列): 検索する特定のAPI仕様ID
- 戻り値: APIカタログからの一致するスキーマ
load-api-operation-by-operationId
- 操作IDで操作をロードする
- 入力:
  - specId (文字列): API仕様ID
  - operationId (文字列): ロードする操作ID
- 戻り値: 完全な操作の詳細
load-api-operation-by-path-and-method
- パスとメソッドで操作をロードする
- 入力:
  - specId (文字列): API仕様ID
  - path (文字列): APIエンドポイントパス
  - method （文字列）：HTTPメソッド
- 戻り値: 完全な操作の詳細
load-api-schema-by-schemaName
- schemaName でスキーマをロードする
- 入力:
  - specId (文字列): API仕様ID
  - schemaName (文字列): ロードするスキーマの名前
- 戻り値: 完全なスキーマの詳細

ロードマップ

セマンティック検索
- API 操作とスキーマの自然言語クエリを有効にする
- 意味理解による検索精度の向上
リモート仕様同期
- リモートソースからの OpenAPI 仕様の同期をサポート
コードテンプレート
- MCPプロトコルを通じてコードテンプレートを公開する
- LLM コード生成用の参照パターンを提供する
コミュニティへの貢献
- 機能リクエストやバグレポートを送信する
- サーバーの改善に貢献する

カーソル内のプロンプトの例

以下は、Cursor IDE で API を操作するために使用できるプロンプトの例です。

利用可能なAPIを調べる

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

API操作の詳細

"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"

スキーマとモックデータ

"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"

コード生成

"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"

API統合支援

"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"

ドキュメントと使用方法

"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"

検証と型

"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"

API検索と検出

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

これらのプロンプトは、MCPサーバーの機能をAPI開発に活用する方法を示しています。ご自身のニーズに合わせて自由にカスタマイズしたり、より複雑なタスクのために組み合わせたりしてください。

貢献

貢献を歓迎します！お気軽にプルリクエストを送信してください。

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`specId`	Yes
`operationId`	Yes

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`specId`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`method`	Yes

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`specId`	Yes
`schemaName`	Yes

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`specId`	No

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`specId`	No

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.

7 tool updatesAug 18, 2025
- 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

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

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

Related MCP Connectors

hithereiamaliff-mcp-nextcloudOAuth
ai.smithery
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Cloud Storage File Systems Workplace & Productivity
237
Apideck MCP A
dev.apideck.mcp
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
Developer Tools
42
mcp COAuth
com.wix
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Developer Tools Content Management Systems App Automation
216
simceptorOAuth
io.github.ayda212
AI-native mock API server with MCP. Create REST/SOAP mocks from Claude, Cursor, or Windsurf.
API Testing Testing & QA Tools
2

Related MCP Servers

OpenAPI MCP Server
API Testing Developer Tools
ivo-toby
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
A server that enables Large Language Models to discover and interact with REST APIs defined by OpenAPI specifications through the Model Context Protocol.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-15 14:57 UTC)
3,501
289
MIT
@lex-tools/codebase-contextofficial
Code Analysis Developer Tools Documentation Access
lex-tools
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server designed to easily dump your codebase context into Large Language Models (LLMs).
Updated a year ago (2025-08-02 06:43 UTC)
1
12
3
Apache 2.0
MockLoop MCP Serverofficial
API Testing Developer Tools Code Analysis
MockLoop
A
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that generates and runs mock API servers from API documentation like OpenAPI/Swagger specs, enabling developers and AI assistants to quickly spin up mock backends for development and testing.
Updated 13 hours ago (2026-09-05 19:47 UTC)
17
MIT
Swagger/OpenAPI MCP Server
API Testing Documentation Access
gulbaki
A
license
D
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to explore and interact with API specifications by providing tools for loading, browsing, and getting detailed information about API endpoints.
Updated a year ago (2025-06-16 14:03 UTC)
4
16
14
ISC

Appeared in Searches

How to request a remote API using an OpenAPI document

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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

@reapi/mcp-openapi

特徴

ReAPIを搭載

🎨 API CMS

🧪 API テスト

カーソルの設定

オプション 1: プロジェクト固有の構成 (推奨)

オプション2: グローバル構成

カーソル設定で有効にする

OpenAPI仕様要件

仕組み

ツール

ロードマップ

カーソル内のプロンプトの例

貢献

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

@lex-tools/codebase-contextofficial

MockLoop MCP Serverofficial

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API