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

LLM 기반 IDE 통합을 지원하기 위해 여러 OpenAPI 사양을 로드하고 제공하는 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP) 서버입니다. 이 서버는 OpenAPI 사양과 Cursor 및 기타 코드 편집기와 같은 LLM 기반 개발 도구를 연결하는 다리 역할을 합니다.

특징

디렉토리에서 여러 OpenAPI 사양을 로드합니다.
MCP 프로토콜을 통해 API 작업 및 스키마를 공개합니다.
LLM이 IDE에서 직접 API를 이해하고 작업할 수 있도록 합니다.
완전한 API 컨텍스트에 대한 참조 해제된 스키마를 지원합니다.
사용 가능한 모든 API의 카탈로그를 유지합니다.

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

ReAPI 기반

이 오픈소스 MCP 서버는 API 설계 및 테스트를 간소화하는 차세대 API 플랫폼인 ReAPI 의 지원을 받습니다. 이 서버는 개발을 위한 로컬 OpenAPI 통합을 제공하는 반면, ReAPI는 두 가지 강력한 모듈을 제공합니다.

🎨 API CMS

직관적인 무코드 편집기를 사용하여 API 디자인
OpenAPI 사양을 자동으로 생성하고 게시합니다.
실시간으로 팀원들과 협업하세요
버전 제어 및 변경 관리

🧪 API 테스트

개발자에게 가장 친화적인 무코드 API 테스트 솔루션
직관적인 인터페이스로 테스트 케이스를 생성하고 관리하세요
강력한 주장 및 검증 기능
서버리스 클라우드 테스트 실행기
QA 팀과 개발자 모두에게 적합합니다.
CI/CD 통합 준비 완료

reapi.com 에서 ReAPI를 무료로 사용해보고 API 개발의 미래를 경험해 보세요.

커서 구성

MCP OpenAPI 서버를 Cursor IDE와 통합하려면 구성 위치에 대한 두 가지 옵션이 있습니다.

옵션 1: 프로젝트별 구성(권장)

프로젝트 디렉터리에 .cursor/mcp.json 파일을 만드세요. 이 옵션을 사용하면 프로젝트별로 서로 다른 사양 세트를 관리할 수 있으므로 권장됩니다.

지엑스피1

팁 : ./specs 와 같은 상대 경로를 사용하면 구성을 이식할 수 있고 팀원들 사이에서 공유하기가 더 쉬워집니다.
참고사항 : 당사는 서버에 새로운 기능과 개선 사항을 자주 업데이트하므로 @latest 태그를 사용하는 것이 좋습니다.
중요 : 프로젝트별 구성은 LLM 컨텍스트 제한을 관리하는 데 도움이 됩니다. 모든 사양을 단일 폴더에 배치하면 결합된 메타데이터가 LLM 컨텍스트 창을 초과하여 오류가 발생할 수 있습니다. 프로젝트별로 사양을 구성하면 컨텍스트 크기를 효율적으로 관리할 수 있습니다.

옵션 2: 글로벌 구성

모든 프로젝트에서 서버를 사용할 수 있도록 홈 디렉토리에 ~/.cursor/mcp.json 만들거나 편집하세요.

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

커서 설정에서 활성화

구성을 추가한 후:

커서 IDE 열기
설정 > 커서 설정 > MCP로 이동하세요.
@reapi/mcp-openapi 서버 활성화
변경 사항을 적용하려면 서버 옆에 있는 새로 고침 아이콘을 클릭하세요.

참고 : 기본적으로 커서는 MCP 도구를 실행할 때마다 확인 절차를 거쳐야 합니다. 확인 절차 없이 자동 실행되도록 하려면 커서 설정에서 Yolo 모드를 활성화하세요.

이제 서버를 사용할 준비가 되었습니다. 디렉토리에 새로운 OpenAPI 사양을 추가하면 다음과 같은 방법으로 카탈로그를 새로 고칠 수 있습니다.

커서의 채팅 패널 열기

다음 프롬프트 중 하나를 입력하세요.

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

OpenAPI 사양 요구 사항

대상 디렉토리에 OpenAPI 3.x 사양을 넣으세요.
- JSON 및 YAML 형식을 모두 지원합니다
- 파일 확장자는 .json , .yaml 또는 .yml 이어야 합니다.
- 스캐너는 모든 사양 파일을 자동으로 검색하고 처리합니다.
사양 ID 구성:
- 기본적으로 파일 이름(확장자 없음)이 사양 ID로 사용됩니다.
- 사용자 지정 ID를 지정하려면 OpenAPI 정보 개체에 x-spec-id 추가합니다.
```
openapi: 3.0.0
info:
  title: My API
  version: 1.0.0
  x-spec-id: my-custom-api-id  # Custom specification ID
```
중요 : 여러 사양을 작업할 때 사용자 지정 x-spec-id 설정하는 것은 매우 중요합니다.
- 유사하거나 동일한 종료점 경로
- 동일한 스키마 이름
- 중복되는 작업 ID
사양 ID는 이러한 유사한 리소스를 구분하고 이름 충돌을 방지하는 데 도움이 됩니다. 예:
# user-service.yaml info: x-spec-id: user-service paths: /users: get: ... # admin-service.yaml info: x-spec-id: admin-service paths: /users: get: ...
이제 이러한 엔드포인트를 구체적으로 user-service/users 및 admin-service/users 로 참조할 수 있습니다.

작동 원리

서버는 지정된 디렉토리에서 OpenAPI 사양 파일을 스캔합니다.
완전한 컨텍스트를 위해 사양을 처리하고 참조 해제합니다.
모든 API 작업 및 스키마의 카탈로그를 생성하고 유지 관리합니다.
MCP 프로토콜을 통해 이 정보를 노출합니다.
IDE 통합은 이 정보를 사용하여 다음을 수행할 수 있습니다.
- LLM에 API 컨텍스트 제공
- 지능형 코드 완성을 활성화하세요
- API 통합 지원
- API 인식 코드 조각 생성

도구

refresh-api-catalog
- API 카탈로그 새로 고침
- 반환: 카탈로그가 새로 고쳐지면 성공 메시지가 표시됩니다.
get-api-catalog
- API 카탈로그를 받으세요. 카탈로그에는 모든 OpenAPI 사양, 해당 작업 및 스키마에 대한 메타데이터가 포함되어 있습니다.
- 반환: 모든 사양, 작업 및 스키마가 포함된 완전한 API 카탈로그
search-api-operations
- 사양 전반에 걸쳐 작업 검색
- 입력:
  - query (문자열): 검색 쿼리
  - specId (선택적 문자열): 검색할 특정 API 사양 ID
- 반환: API 카탈로그에서 일치하는 작업
search-api-schemas
- 사양 전반에 걸쳐 스키마 검색
- 입력:
  - query (문자열): 검색 쿼리
  - specId (선택적 문자열): 검색할 특정 API 사양 ID
- 반환: API 카탈로그에서 일치하는 스키마
load-api-operation-by-operationId
- operationId로 작업 로드
- 입력:
  - specId (문자열): API 사양 ID
  - operationId (문자열): 로드할 작업 ID
- 반환: 전체 작업 세부 정보
load-api-operation-by-path-and-method
- 경로 및 메서드로 작업 로드
- 입력:
  - specId (문자열): API 사양 ID
  - path (문자열): API 엔드포인트 경로
  - method (문자열): HTTP 메서드
- 반환: 전체 작업 세부 정보
load-api-schema-by-schemaName
- schemaName으로 스키마 로드
- 입력:
  - specId (문자열): API 사양 ID
  - schemaName (문자열): 로드할 스키마의 이름
- 반환: 완전한 스키마 세부 정보

로드맵

의미 검색
- API 작업 및 스키마에 대한 자연어 쿼리 활성화
- 의미적 이해를 통해 검색 정확도 향상
원격 사양 동기화
- 원격 소스에서 OpenAPI 사양 동기화 지원
코드 템플릿
- MCP 프로토콜을 통해 코드 템플릿 노출
- LLM 코드 생성을 위한 참조 패턴 제공
커뮤니티 기여
- 기능 요청 및 버그 보고서 제출
- 서버 개선에 기여하세요

커서의 예제 프롬프트

다음은 Cursor IDE에서 API와 상호 작용하는 데 사용할 수 있는 몇 가지 프롬프트 예입니다.

사용 가능한 API 탐색

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

API 작업 세부 정보

"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"

스키마 및 모의 데이터

"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"

코드 생성

"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 통합 지원

"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"

문서 및 사용법

"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"

검증 및 유형

"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 검색 및 발견

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

이 프롬프트는 MCP 서버의 기능을 활용하여 API를 개발하는 방법을 보여줍니다. 특정 요구 사항에 맞게 수정하거나 더 복잡한 작업을 위해 여러 프롬프트를 결합할 수 있습니다.

기여하다

기여를 환영합니다! 풀 리퀘스트를 제출해 주세요.

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 16 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

특징

ReAPI 기반

🎨 API CMS

🧪 API 테스트

커서 구성

옵션 1: 프로젝트별 구성(권장)

옵션 2: 글로벌 구성

커서 설정에서 활성화

OpenAPI 사양 요구 사항

작동 원리

도구

로드맵

커서의 예제 프롬프트

기여하다

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