Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Apitomy Data Models MCP

Apitomy Data Models MCP

Official
by Apitomy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

document_add_response_definition

Add a reusable response definition to your OpenAPI or AsyncAPI document by specifying name and JSON response.

Instructions

Add a reusable response definition to the document

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": {
      "session": "<session>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "response": "<response>"
    },
    "name": "document_add_response_definition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesResponse definition name (e.g. NotFound, ErrorResponse)
sessionYesSession name
responseYesJSON string with the response definition

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., modifies document, needs session). It only says 'Add', but does not explain effects, auth needs, or 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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Efficiently conveys core action.

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?

Adequate for a simple add tool with 3 params and no output schema, but lacks context like session existence requirement or error behavior. Minimal completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds little extra beyond repeating the action, but the example in name slightly adds value. 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 clearly states the action 'Add' and the resource 'reusable response definition', distinguishing it from sibling tools like document_add_response or document_add_response_header.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like document_add_response or document_add_response_header. No prerequisites or constraints are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools