Import an OpenAPI spec from a public URL to add it to your project for SDK generation or API documentation.
Import an OpenAPI spec from a public URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| project_id | No | Project id. Optional, falls back to the CLI's selected project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never says whether importing creates a new spec entry or overwrites an existing one, whether authentication is required, or what happens on failure. The only behavioral nugget is that the source must be publicly reachable, which is useful but far from sufficient for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — every word earns its place. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented, the agent lacks key information: does importing overwrite or add a spec, what identifies the resulting spec, and what is returned. The description is too thin for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: project_id documents its fallback-to-CLI-selected-project behavior, while url has no schema description at all. The description's 'public URL' phrase partially compensates by telling the agent the URL must be externally reachable, but gives no format or HTTP/HTTPS requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Import) and resource (an OpenAPI spec) plus the source constraint (from a public URL), which is enough to distinguish it from octri_push_spec and octri_validate_spec in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it falls just under the top band.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, even though octri_push_spec is an obvious near-neighbour that an agent could confuse it with. The agent is left to infer that this path is for remotely hosted specs versus locally supplied ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.