Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
api-mcp

api-mcp

by Hassan-Jamal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Export saved results to HTML + colorful XLSX

export_report

Regenerate shareable HTML and multi-sheet XLSX reports from previously saved test data, enabling report extraction without re-running tests.

Instructions

Regenerates the HTML report and a colorful, multi-sheet XLSX spreadsheet from previously saved endpoints.json / results.json (in the project's .api-mcp folder). Use this to get shareable HTML/Excel output without re-running the tests.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "export_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesProject root path (containing the .api-mcp folder).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.11

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'regenerates' reports from saved files, implying a non-destructive read operation, but lacks details on error handling, required permissions, or what happens if files are missing.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it does and when to use it. It could mention the output format (HTML+XLSX) more explicitly, but that is already in the title.

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 one parameter (path). The description adds 'Project root path (containing the .api-mcp folder)' which is already in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 it exports saved results to HTML and XLSX, specifies the source files (endpoints.json / results.json) and the folder (.api-mcp). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it does not re-run tests.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use: 'to get shareable HTML/Excel output without re-running the tests.' While it does not list when-not-to-use or alternative tools, the context of sibling tools (e.g., run_tests) implies the distinction.

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