Janus MCP

list_endpoints

List all available endpoints in an OpenAPI specification, with optional filters by tags or HTTP methods, to help AI assistants understand API structures for integration.

Instructions

List all available endpoints in the OpenAPI specification

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "list_endpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Optional: Filter endpoints by tags
`methods`	No	Optional: Filter endpoints by HTTP methods (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, etc.)
`sessionId`	Yes	The session ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the core action. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it explain return format, pagination, or session requirements.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The purpose is immediately clear and nothing extraneous is included.

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 low-complexity listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, it leaves behavioral context and tool-selection context unaddressed.

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 schema fully documents the optional tags and methods filters plus the required sessionId. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available endpoints in the OpenAPI specification'), making the core action obvious. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular get_endpoint_details sibling, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_endpoint_details, get_tags, or get_components. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an initialized session, even though sessionId is required.

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

Deploy Server