Add a header to an OpenAPI response, defining its name, description, and schema type or reference.
Add a header to an OpenAPI response
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Header name (e.g. X-Rate-Limit) | |
| session | Yes | Session name | |
| nodePath | Yes | Node path to the response (e.g. /paths[/pets]/get/responses[200]) | |
| schemaRef | No | Schema $ref string | |
| schemaType | No | Schema type (defaults to string) | |
| description | No | Header description |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is destructive, whether it appends or overwrites existing headers, or if authorization is required. The description only states the action.
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?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it lacks details that could improve usability. It is not verbose, but sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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?
Given the 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context about the tool's operation, such as the fact that it modifies the current session document or the structure of the node path.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters relate to the OpenAPI structure.
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?
The description clearly states 'Add a header to an OpenAPI response', specifying the action and resource. While it distinguishes from sibling tools via the name, it doesn't differentiate from document_add_header_definition which is a different operation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to use, or when not to use, which is essential given the large number of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Apitomy/apitomy-data-models-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server