get_security_scheme_componentGet one security scheme with its type-specific settings and rowVersion. Set includeUsage to also list the endpoints requiring it. Requires project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| specId | Yes | Public ID (GUID) of the API specification | |
| componentId | Yes | Public ID (GUID) of the security scheme component | |
| includeUsage | No | Also list what references this scheme (default false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation safe. The description adds a useful context prerequisite ('Requires project context') and indicates the response includes rowVersion, but offers no additional behavioral detail on errors or limits. With annotations present, the added value is modest.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. No fluff; every phrase adds information (type-specific settings, rowVersion, includeUsage behavior, context requirement).
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?
Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what the response contains (type-specific settings, rowVersion) and how includeUsage changes the result. It also notes the context requirement. Missing details like error conditions are minor for a simple read operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented (specId, componentId, includeUsage with default). The tool description mostly restates the includeUsage effect and introduces output concepts (type-specific settings, rowVersion) rather than adding new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('security scheme component'), and scopes it to a single item with type-specific settings and rowVersion. It clearly distinguishes from list_security_scheme_components and other get_* tools given the sibling list.
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?
Provides a condition for using includeUsage ('to also list the endpoints requiring it') and states the prerequisite 'Requires project context.' It does not explicitly contrast with list_security_scheme_components, but the singular 'Get' plus sibling naming makes the primary use case clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.