@mhdd_24/api-scenario-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| PROJECT_ROOT | No | Default project/repository root |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| apiscen_statusA | Health check for API Scenario MCP. |
| apiscen_generateC | Generate a multi-step API workflow. |
| apiscen_to_httpC | Convert a scenario outline to HTTP steps. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: status is a health check, generate creates a workflow, and to_http converts an outline to HTTP steps. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity among the three tools.
All tools share the consistent apiscen_ prefix and use snake_case, but the naming pattern is slightly uneven: status is a noun, generate is a verb, and to_http is a converter-style phrase. The naming is still predictable and readable overall.
Three tools is an appropriate size for this focused API scenario utility. Each tool supports a distinct part of the workflow without being redundant or bloated.
The core pipeline of generating a scenario and converting it to HTTP steps is covered, with a health check for operational use. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit validation or management tools for scenarios, but they do not undermine the stated purpose.