api-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Execute API tests against a live server

run_tests

Generate a test plan and execute it against a running server, saving full responses to results.json and a Markdown report.

Instructions

Generates the test plan and executes it against the running server (like Postman). Saves full responses to results.json and a Markdown report. Requires baseUrl unless endpoints use absolute URLs.

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": "run_tests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Project root path.
`dryRun`	No	If true, list the planned requests without sending them.
`baseUrl`	No	Base URL of the running server, e.g. http://localhost:3000.
`headers`	No	Extra headers applied to every request. Supports ${ENV_VAR}.
`categories`	No	Only run these test categories. Omit to run all.
`bearerToken`	No	Bearer token for Authorization header. Supports ${ENV_VAR}.
`concurrency`	No	How many requests to run in parallel.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.11Jul 9, 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 full burden. It discloses file saving and URL requirement but omits potential side effects (e.g., destructive requests) and doesn't explain concurrency or error handling.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The key actions are front-loaded, and the requirement is stated separately.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers overall purpose and a key prerequisite but leaves behavioral details (concurrency, error handling, response format) 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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about generating a test plan and saving reports, but does not enhance individual parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it generates and executes a test plan, saving responses and a Markdown report. The 'like Postman' analogy aids understanding. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'generate_tests' or 'export_report'.

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?

It mentions the baseUrl prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context for selection.

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

Deploy Server