Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Apitomy Data Models MCP

Apitomy Data Models MCP

Official
by Apitomy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

document_add_security_scheme

Add a security scheme definition to an OpenAPI or AsyncAPI document. Specify authentication method details like bearerAuth or apiKey using a JSON scheme.

Instructions

Add a security scheme 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>",
      "scheme": "<scheme>"
    },
    "name": "document_add_security_scheme"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesSecurity scheme name (e.g. bearerAuth, apiKey)
schemeYesJSON string with the security scheme definition
sessionYesSession name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Add'. It does not disclose whether it overwrites existing schemes, validates input, or requires a saved document. No side effects or limits are mentioned.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but arguably under-specified. However, brevity alone earns a 4 given no redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks context on what a security scheme is, how the JSON should be structured, and how this fits into the document lifecycle. The schema fills some gaps but the description falls short.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, merely echoing 'security scheme definition' which is already in the schema's scheme parameter description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Add a security scheme definition to the document' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like document_add_security_requirement and document_list_security_schemes, but could be more specific about the target (e.g., components/securitySchemes).

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like document_update_security_scheme or prerequisites such as an existing document or session.

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