Skip to main content
Glama

Routebase

by dev.routebase.mcp

Validate Spec

validate_spec
Read-only

Validate an OpenAPI specification against the standard. Provide either content to validate directly, or specId to validate an existing spec. Set mode to 'import' for a dry run of import_spec instead: same errors and warnings, plus what would be created (endpoint, schema and folder counts), the detected format and whether a 3.0 → 3.1 conversion happened. Nothing is written either way.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoWhat to check: 'openapi' (default) or 'import'openapi
formatNoFormat hint: 'yaml', 'json', or omit for auto-detection
specIdNoPublic ID (GUID) of an existing spec to validate. If provided, the spec is exported first and then validated.
contentNoThe OpenAPI specification content to validate (YAML or JSON). Provide either content or specId, not both.
convertToOpenApi31NoFor mode 'import': convert a 3.0 document to 3.1 (default false)
shortenSchemaNamesNoFor mode 'import': shorten generated schema names (default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Nothing is written either way', which strongly reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation. It also clarifies that import mode is a dry run, so an agent knows validation and import preview have no side effects.

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 concise and well-structured, using clear imperative and conditional phrasing. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description provides complete context for both normal validation and import dry-run modes, including what output to expect (errors, warnings, counts, detected format, conversion status). Given the absence of an output schema, this textual description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to know.

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

Parameters5/5

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

All six parameters are fully described in the schema, and the description adds important semantic details beyond the schema, such as 'If provided, the spec is exported first and then validated' for specId, and 'Provide either content or specId, not both.' This gives the agent complete understanding of parameter relationships and behavior.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: validating an OpenAPI specification against a standard. It distinguishes between validating provided content and an existing spec, and explicitly explains the 'import' dry-run mode, making the primary purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit usage instructions: provide either content or specId, not both; explains the 'import' mode as a dry run of import_spec; and clarifies the effect of the convertToOpenApi31 and shortenSchemaNames options. It also states that nothing is written, setting clear expectations.

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

All Routebase toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources