swagger-api-mcp-server

Update Spec Cache

swagger_update_cache

Idempotent

Re-fetches Swagger/OpenAPI spec and rebuilds local cache. Use when upstream spec changes, optionally with a new URL.

Instructions

Re-fetch the Swagger/OpenAPI spec and rebuild the local file cache. Use this when the upstream spec has changed. Optionally provide a new URL.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "swagger_update_cache"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	URL of the spec to reload. If omitted, re-fetches the previously loaded URL.
`headers`	No	Optional HTTP headers for fetching the spec

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.6Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds the concrete behavior of rebuilding the local file cache, which is useful. It does not detail error handling or side effects of providing a new URL, but the existing annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 crisp sentences accomplish the description's goal without redundancy. The first sentence states the action, the second gives the usage trigger and param note.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and usage scenario adequately. It does not explicitly differentiate from swagger_load_spec, but the purpose and annotations provide enough context for an agent to decide to use it when a spec refresh is needed.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters with full coverage; the description's 'Optionally provide a new URL' merely restates the schema's optionality, adding no new semantic information. Baseline for 100% schema coverage is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 uses specific action verbs 'Re-fetch' and 'rebuild' to state its function, clearly distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools by indicating it modifies the local cache. The mention of Swagger/OpenAPI spec identifies the resource.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the upstream spec has changed'), providing clear context for invocation. Does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'when' clause is sufficient for a simple cache refresh tool.

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

Deploy Server