SwishrJobs

OpenAPI conformance check

submit_openapi_conformance_check

Idempotent

Check an OpenAPI document for the defects that make an agent-generated client fail: missing operationIds, absent error responses and non-HTTPS servers. Before publishing an OpenAPI document that agents will generate clients from. Do not choose this when you need the API called, which needs the service running. Example requests: Check my OpenAPI document for defects that break generated clients. | Are my operationIds and error responses complete? | Audit this OpenAPI spec for agent client compatibility. | Find the problems in this API spec before I publish it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "inputs": "<inputs>",
      "authorized_by": "<authorized_by>"
    },
    "name": "submit_openapi_conformance_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`inputs`	Yes
`quote_id`	No	The quote_id returned by POST /v1/jobs. Required to authorize a priced capability; the service rejects a priced job that does not name the quote it issued.
`authorized_by`	Yes	Identifier of the human or agent authorizing this job.
`accepted_price`	No	The amount accepted, exactly as quoted (for example "5.00" or 5). Checked against the stored quote, so a price that moved between quote and authorize is refused rather than silently absorbed. Optional, but sent to make the acceptance explicit.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`quote`	No
`state`	Yes
`job_id`	Yes
`artifacts`	No
`access_token`	No	Per-job credential. Present it as the X-Job-Token header to read the job or list it. Keep it; it is the only credential for this job.
`verification`	No	Independent verification. verification.ok = false means the job failed, not a partial success.
`capability_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's "check" framing is consistent with that safety profile, so no contradiction arises from readOnlyHint=false. However, the description never discloses that this is a priced job submission requiring a quote_id obtained from POST /v1/jobs and an authorizing party — behavior an agent needs and which appears only in the schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence is well front-loaded and the usage sentences are efficient, but the four appended example requests are near-duplicates of each other and of the opening sentence, adding bulk rather than information. Roughly half the description restates the same intent in different phrasings.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the defect scope is well covered. What is missing is the surrounding workflow: that this is a priced capability requiring a quote and an authorizing identity, which is a material omission for a tool whose schema marks two of four parameters as required.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema largely documents inputs.openapi, quote_id, accepted_price and authorized_by itself. The description adds no syntax, format or constraint detail about any parameter — it only implies via examples that the payload is an OpenAPI spec. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Check an OpenAPI document") and enumerates the exact defect classes it targets: missing operationIds, absent error responses, non-HTTPS servers. That enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from nearby siblings such as submit_api_contract_diff or submit_mcp_tool_schema_linter without needing to open a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states a clear triggering context ("Before publishing an OpenAPI document that agents will generate clients from") and an explicit exclusion ("Do not choose this when you need the API called, which needs the service running"). The gap is that the excluded alternative is described by circumstance rather than named, so in a 100-sibling catalogue the agent still has to guess which tool handles live API invocation.

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

All SwishrJobs tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?