Swagger/OpenAPI MCP Server
Allows LLMs to explore and interact with Swagger/OpenAPI specifications, providing tools for loading API specifications, browsing endpoints, and getting detailed information about API operations.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Swagger/OpenAPI MCP Serverload the Petstore API from https://petstore.swagger.io/v2/swagger.json"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Swagger/OpenAPI MCP Server
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that allows LLMs to explore and interact with Swagger/OpenAPI specifications. This server provides tools and resources for loading API specifications, browsing endpoints, and getting detailed information about API operations.
Installation
Clone or create the project directory
Install dependencies:
npm installBuild the TypeScript code:
npm run buildRelated MCP server: OpenAPI MCP Server
Usage
Available Tools
load_api
Load an OpenAPI/Swagger specification into the server.
Parameters:
apiId(string): Unique identifier for this APIsource(string): URL or file path to the OpenAPI/Swagger specification
Example:
{
"name": "load_api",
"arguments": {
"apiId": "petstore",
"source": "https://petstore.swagger.io/v2/swagger.json"
}
}get_endpoint_details
Get detailed information about a specific API endpoint.
Parameters:
apiId(string): ID of the loaded APImethod(string): HTTP method (GET, POST, etc.)path(string): API endpoint pathnatural(boolean, optional): If true, returns a human-readable summary
Example:
{
"name": "get_endpoint_details",
"arguments": {
"apiId": "petstore",
"method": "GET",
"path": "/pet/{petId}",
"natural": true
}
}list_apis
List all currently loaded API specifications.
Parameters: None
search_endpoints
Search for endpoints matching a specific pattern.
Parameters:
apiId(string): ID of the loaded APIpattern(string): Search pattern for endpoint paths or descriptions
Example:
{
"name": "search_endpoints",
"arguments": {
"apiId": "petstore",
"pattern": "pet"
}
}Available Resources
swagger://{apiId}/load
Get overview information about a loaded API specification.
swagger://{apiId}/endpoints
Get a list of all available endpoints for an API.
swagger://{apiId}/endpoint/{method}/{path}
Get detailed information about a specific endpoint.
Configuration with Claude Desktop
To use this server with Claude Desktop, add the following to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"swagger-explorer": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/your/swagger-mcp-server/build/index.js"]
}
}
}Replace /path/to/your/swagger-mcp-server with the actual path to your project directory.
License
MIT License
Available Tools
4 toolsget_endpoint_detailsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiId | Yes | ID of the loaded API | |
| method | Yes | HTTP method (GET, POST, etc.) | |
| path | Yes | API endpoint path | |
| natural | No | If true, returns a human-readable summary |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_apisD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
load_apiD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiId | Yes | Unique identifier for this API | |
| source | Yes | URL or file path to the OpenAPI/Swagger specification |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_endpointsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiId | Yes | ID of the loaded API | |
| pattern | Yes | Search pattern for endpoint paths or descriptions |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
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 tool update
v1.0.0- Changed
list_apis1 field changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false
4 tool updates
- First observed
get_endpoint_details - First observed
list_apis - First observed
load_api - First observed
search_endpoints
TDQS
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_endpoint_details retrieves specific endpoint information, list_apis enumerates available APIs, load_api loads an API specification, and search_endpoints searches across endpoints. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_endpoint_details, list_apis, load_api, search_endpoints). The naming is uniform and predictable, using snake_case throughout with clear action-object pairs.
With only 4 tools, the set feels thin for a Swagger/OpenAPI server, which typically involves operations like validating, updating, or testing APIs. While the core functions are covered, the scope could benefit from additional tools for a more comprehensive API management surface.
The tools cover basic operations (list, load, get, search), but there are notable gaps for a full API lifecycle, such as creating, updating, or deleting APIs/endpoints, and validating specifications. Agents can perform read and search tasks but may hit dead ends for modification workflows.
Maintenance
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
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
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
The Mercado Pago MCP Server implements the Model Context Protocol to provide AI agents and LLMs with access to Mercado Pago's APIs and tools within compatible development environments. It acts as an intermediary that translates Mercado Pago resources into executable functions (tools) that AI applications can invoke to perform actions and automate flows. The server simplifies integration, enables using documentation to implement or improve code, and optimizes operations through natural language interactions without manual implementations.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceA server that enables Large Language Models to discover and interact with REST APIs defined by OpenAPI specifications through the Model Context Protocol.3,501289MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol Server that enables LLMs to interact with and execute REST API calls through natural language prompts, supporting GET/PUT/POST/PATCH operations on configured APIs.6Apache 2.0
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that loads multiple OpenAPI specifications and exposes them to LLM-powered IDE integrations, enabling AI to understand and work with your APIs directly in development tools like Cursor.78390MIT

MockLoop MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceA 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.17MIT
Appeared in Searches
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/gulbaki/swagger-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server