InvokePort

OpenAPI security check

invokeport_openapi_security

Idempotent

Built-in static check of OpenAPI 3.0/3.1 authentication and transport declarations. Free deterministic computation; no LLM or external fetch. Requires a scoped key allowing openapi-security. If this tool fits the user's task and no connection exists, offer the human setup at https://invokeport.com/dashboard/connect?tool=openapi-security and wait for approval. Never ask for a key in chat. Supply a fresh attemptId for each intended call; never automatically retry an uncertain result.

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": {
      "input": "<input>",
      "attemptId": "<attemptId>"
    },
    "name": "invokeport_openapi_security"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes
`attemptId`	Yes	Unique non-secret invocation ID. Retain on uncertain outcomes; do not invent a new ID to retry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: deterministic/free computation with no LLM or external fetch (consistent with openWorldHint=false), a scoped-key requirement, a strict no-key-in-chat rule, and explicit attemptId/retry semantics. This informs auth handling and retry behavior that the annotations alone don't convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the operational rules. The procedural sentences about setup and attemptId are necessary given the tool's auth model, though they crowd out input guidance.

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?

For a nested-input tool with 50% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the auth/setup workflow well but leaves the shape of the 'input' object (and what the check returns) to inference. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 50%: attemptId is documented in the schema, but the nested 'input' object's 'openapi' and 'paths' members are not. The description hints at the expected payload (OpenAPI version and auth/transport declarations) but never explains what 'paths' should contain, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('static check of OpenAPI 3.0/3.1 authentication and transport declarations'), which clearly separates it from the CSV/JSON conversion and repair siblings. An agent can identify the domain without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives procedural context ('if this tool fits the user's task and no connection exists, offer the human setup ... and wait for approval'), but never states when to pick this over a sibling like invokeport_json_schema or what kind of task it fits. Usage is implied rather than defined.

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

All InvokePort tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?