List every operation in the current OpenAPI spec with method, path, operationId and deprecation status, so you can review them in SDK Studio. Optionally specify a project id.
Every operation the parser found in the current spec, with method, path, operationId and deprecation, the list the SDK Studio renders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. It usefully discloses the return shape (method, path, operationId, deprecation) and implies a read-only enumeration, but says nothing about pagination, what happens when no spec exists in the project, or ordering.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the resource and returned fields are front-loaded. The trailing clause 'the list the SDK Studio renders' adds context but is slightly ornate.
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 one-optional-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately names the returned fields, partly compensating for the absent output schema. It still omits empty-spec behavior and read-only confirmation, leaving a modest gap.
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?
The single optional project_id is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the CLI-selected-project fallback, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which matches the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 resource (operations found in the current spec) and enumerates the returned fields (method, path, operationId, deprecation), so an agent knows exactly what this yields versus list_specs or list_builds. It is phrased as a noun clause rather than an explicit verb like 'List', but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for this tool rather than octri_list_specs, octri_validate_spec, or octri_list_doc_pages. Usage is only inferable from the resource name, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.