Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
ReAPI-com

MCP OpenAPI Server

by ReAPI-com
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

@reapi/mcp-openapi

模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器，可加载并提供多种 OpenAPI 规范，从而支持 LLM 驱动的 IDE 集成。该服务器充当 OpenAPI 规范与 Cursor 和其他 LLM 驱动的开发工具（例如代码编辑器）之间的桥梁。

特征

  • 从目录加载多个 OpenAPI 规范

  • 通过 MCP 协议公开 API 操作和模式

  • 使 LLM 能够直接在 IDE 中理解和使用 API

  • 支持完整 API 上下文的取消引用模式

  • 维护所有可用 API 的目录

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

由ReAPI提供支持

此开源 MCP 服务器由ReAPI赞助，ReAPI 是一个简化 API 设计和测试的下一代 API 平台。此服务器不仅提供本地 OpenAPI 集成以供开发使用，还提供了两个强大的模块：

🎨 API CMS

  • 使用直观的无代码编辑器设计 API

  • 自动生成并发布OpenAPI规范

  • 与团队成员实时协作

  • 版本控制和变更管理

🧪 API 测试

  • 最适合开发人员的无代码 API 测试解决方案

  • 使用直观的界面创建和管理测试用例

  • 强大的断言和验证功能

  • 无服务器云测试执行器

  • 非常适合 QA 团队和开发人员

  • CI/CD 集成就绪

在reapi.com免费试用 ReAPI 并体验 API 开发的未来。

游标配置

要将 MCP OpenAPI 服务器与 Cursor IDE 集成，您有两个配置位置选项：

选项 1：项目特定配置（推荐）

在项目目录中创建一个.cursor/mcp.json文件。建议使用此选项，因为它允许您为不同的项目维护不同的规范集。

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

提示：使用像./specs这样的相对路径可以使配置可移植并且更容易在团队成员之间共享。

注意：我们建议使用@latest标签，因为我们经常使用新功能和改进来更新服务器。

重要提示：项目特定的配置有助于管理 LLM 上下文限制。当所有规范都放在一个文件夹中时，合并后的元数据可能会超出 LLM 的上下文窗口，从而导致错误。按项目组织规范可以使上下文大小易于管理。

选项 2：全局配置

在您的主目录中创建或编辑~/.cursor/mcp.json以使服务器在所有项目中可用：

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

在光标设置中启用

添加配置后：

  1. 打开游标 IDE

  2. 前往“设置”>“光标设置”>“MCP”

  3. 启用@reapi/mcp-openapi服务器

  4. 单击服务器旁边的刷新图标以应用更改

注意：默认情况下，Cursor 每次执行 MCP 工具时都需要确认。如果您希望允许自动执行而无需确认，您可以在 Cursor 设置中启用Yolo 模式。

服务器现已可供使用。当您将新的 OpenAPI 规范添加到目录时，可以通过以下方式刷新目录：

  1. 打开 Cursor 的聊天面板

  2. 输入以下提示之一：

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

OpenAPI 规范要求

  1. 将您的 OpenAPI 3.x 规范放在目标目录中：

    • 支持 JSON 和 YAML 格式

    • 文件应具有.json 、 .yaml或.yml扩展名

    • 扫描仪将自动发现并处理所有规范文件

  2. 规范ID配置：

    • 默认情况下，文件名（不带扩展名）用作规范 ID

    • 要指定自定义 ID，请在 OpenAPI 信息对象中添加x-spec-id ：

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

    重要提示：当使用具有以下特征的多个规范时，设置自定义x-spec-id至关重要：

    • 相似或相同的端点路径

    • 相同的架构名称

    • 操作 ID 重叠

    spec ID 有助于区分这些相似的资源，并避免命名冲突。例如：

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

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

    现在，您可以将这些端点具体引用为user-service/users和admin-service/users

工作原理

  1. 服务器扫描指定目录中的 OpenAPI 规范文件

  2. 它处理并取消引用完整上下文的规范

  3. 创建并维护所有 API 操作和模式的目录

  4. 通过 MCP 协议公开此信息

  5. IDE 集成可以使用此信息来：

    • 为 LLM 提供 API 上下文

    • 启用智能代码完成

    • 协助API集成

    • 生成 API 感知代码片段

工具

  1. refresh-api-catalog

    • 刷新 API 目录

    • 返回：目录刷新时的成功消息

  2. get-api-catalog

    • 获取 API 目录，该目录包含有关所有 OpenAPI 规范、其操作和模式的元数据

    • 返回：包含所有规范、操作和模式的完整 API 目录

  3. search-api-operations

    • 跨规范搜索操作

    • 输入：

      • query （字符串）：搜索查询

      • specId （可选字符串）：要搜索的特定 API 规范 ID

    • 返回：来自 API 目录的匹配操作

  4. search-api-schemas

    • 跨规范搜索架构

    • 输入：

      • query （字符串）：搜索查询

      • specId （可选字符串）：要搜索的特定 API 规范 ID

    • 返回：来自 API 目录的匹配模式

  5. load-api-operation-by-operationId

    • 通过operationId加载操作

    • 输入：

      • specId （字符串）：API 规范 ID

      • operationId （字符串）：要加载的操作ID

    • 返回：完整的操作详细信息

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

    • 按路径和方法加载操作

    • 输入：

      • specId （字符串）：API 规范 ID

      • path （字符串）：API 端点路径

      • method （字符串）：HTTP 方法

    • 返回：完整的操作详细信息

  7. load-api-schema-by-schemaName

    • 通过 schemaName 加载架构

    • 输入：

      • specId （字符串）：API 规范 ID

      • schemaName （字符串）：要加载的模式的名称

    • 返回：完整的架构详细信息

路线图

  1. 语义搜索

    • 为 API 操作和架构启用自然语言查询

    • 通过语义理解提高搜索准确性

  2. 远程规格同步

    • 支持从远程源同步 OpenAPI 规范

  3. 代码模板

    • 通过 MCP 协议公开代码模板

    • 提供LLM代码生成的参考模式

  4. 社区贡献

    • 提交功能请求和错误报告

    • 为改进服务器做出贡献

光标提示示例

以下是您可以在 Cursor IDE 中用来与您的 API 交互的一些示例提示：

  1. 探索可用的 API

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

  2. API操作详情

    "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. 模式和模拟数据

    "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. 代码生成

    "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"

  5. API 集成协助

    "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. 文档和使用

    "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. 验证和类型

    "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"

  8. API 搜索和发现

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

这些提示演示了如何利用 MCP 服务器的功能进行 API 开发。您可以根据自己的具体需求进行调整，也可以组合使用，以完成更复杂的任务。

贡献

欢迎贡献代码！欢迎提交 Pull 请求。

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