Upload OpenAPI spec text in JSON or YAML as a project's current spec and return the created spec ID. Use it to set or update the active API spec via @octri/cli.
Upload OpenAPI spec text (JSON or YAML) as the project's new current spec. Returns the created spec id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Raw spec text. | |
| 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 burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact that the upload becomes the 'new current spec' (i.e. it replaces the existing one) and that it returns a created spec id. However, it omits auth/permission needs, validation behavior on malformed specs, and error semantics for a mutation.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the return-value note follows, which is valuable given there is no output schema.
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 and no output schema, the description covers the replace-the-current-spec effect and the return value, but leaves out permissions, validation failure modes, and any rollback/irreversibility note. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds only the JSON-or-YAML format hint for content and otherwise restates nothing beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline of 3.
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 and resource: uploads OpenAPI spec text as the project's new current spec. It clearly distinguishes itself from octri_import_spec_url by scope (raw text vs URL), though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative octri_import_spec_url or octri_validate_spec. The agent can infer you use this when holding local spec text, but nothing is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.