api-contract-qa

List operations

list_operations

Lists operations in an API contract (OpenAPI, Swagger, GraphQL, .proto, AsyncAPI, WSDL) and detects the format from a spec, project path, or git-ref path.

Instructions

List the operations in a contract (OpenAPI, Swagger, GraphQL, .proto, AsyncAPI or WSDL; a project path or :). Also tells you the detected format.

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": {
      "spec": "<spec>"
    },
    "name": "list_operations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spec`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the response also reports the detected format — but says nothing about error behavior on unsupported or ambiguous specs, whether the listing is complete or truncated, or how the contract is resolved from a git ref.

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 the verb and resource first, followed by a compact parenthetical of accepted formats and input forms. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input forms, the supported formats, and the extra return signal (detected format). Remaining gaps around failure modes and output structure are modest for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter is only titled "Spec", so the description must compensate — and it does, defining accepted input forms as "a project path or <git-ref>:<path>" and enumerating candidate spec types. It stops short of naming the parameter or restating that it is required.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ("List the operations in a contract") and enumerates the accepted spec formats, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools (diff_contracts, check_live_conformance, etc.), but the purpose is narrow enough to be distinguishable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: listing operations is naturally a first step before assessing or diffing a contract, and the format list hints at valid inputs. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server