MCP OpenAPI Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. For example, get-api-catalog retrieves metadata, load-api-operation-by-operationId and load-api-operation-by-path-and-method load operations via different identifiers, load-api-schema-by-schemaName loads schemas, refresh-api-catalog updates the catalog, and search-api-operations and search-api-schemas perform distinct searches. The descriptions clarify each tool's unique function, preventing misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens, such as get-api-catalog, load-api-operation-by-operationId, and search-api-schemas. This predictability makes the set easy to navigate and understand, with no deviations in naming style across the seven tools.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing OpenAPI specifications. Each tool earns its place by covering essential operations like retrieving, loading, refreshing, and searching metadata, schemas, and operations, without being overly sparse or bloated for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is nearly complete for interacting with OpenAPI specifications, covering catalog retrieval, operation and schema loading, catalog refreshing, and searching. A minor gap exists in lacking direct update or delete operations for specifications, but agents can work around this by refreshing or reloading as needed, and core workflows are well-supported.
Average 2.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level ('load an operation') without explaining what 'loading' entails operationally—whether it's a read-only fetch, requires authentication, has side effects, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification, as it omits necessary details for effective tool use. While structurally efficient, it prioritizes conciseness over completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, return values, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool that likely interacts with an API catalog or specification system, this minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding its role and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter (specId, operationId) is documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'specId' or 'operationId' represent, their expected formats, or examples. With two required parameters and zero coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters semantically opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Load an operation by operationId' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'load' and resource 'operation' but lacks specificity about what an 'operation' represents in this context or what 'loading' entails. Compared to siblings like 'search-api-operations' or 'load-api-schema-by-schemaName', it doesn't clearly differentiate its unique scope or purpose beyond the basic name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for when this is appropriate, or contrast with sibling tools like 'load-api-operation-by-path-and-method' or 'search-api-operations'. Without any usage context, an agent must infer when to select this tool based solely on the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'load' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use, slightly reducing its utility despite the clean structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to reliably select or invoke this tool, especially compared to more detailed alternatives in the toolset.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'schemaName' but doesn't explain what 'specId' is or how these parameters relate to the loading process. It adds minimal value beyond naming one parameter, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Load a schema by schemaName' states the basic action (load) and resource (schema), but is vague about what 'load' means in this context (e.g., retrieve, fetch, display). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-api-schemas' or 'get-api-catalog', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search-api-schemas' and 'get-api-catalog', the description lacks any context about prerequisites, specific use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Load' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, what happens on failure (e.g., if path/method not found), rate limits, or the return format. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with parameters.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Load an operation by path and method', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but for this dimension alone, it's efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple siblings, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's context (e.g., API specifications), parameter details, expected output, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by path and method', which hints at two parameters, but doesn't explain the three parameters (specId, path, method) or their meanings. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate—it doesn't clarify what specId refers to, the format of path/method, or examples of usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Load an operation by path and method' states a clear verb ('Load') and resource ('operation'), but it's vague about what type of operation and lacks differentiation from siblings like 'load-api-operation-by-operationId' or 'search-api-operations'. It doesn't specify if this is for API specifications, OpenAPI operations, or another context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'load-api-operation-by-operationId' (using operationId) and 'search-api-operations' (searching), there's no indication of when path/method lookup is preferred over other methods, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It doesn't describe what 'search' entails (e.g., fuzzy matching, exact terms), the format of results, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a search tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, results, and differentiation from siblings, failing to provide enough context for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'query' should contain (e.g., keywords, operation names) or what 'specId' refers to (e.g., API specification identifiers), leaving both parameters semantically undefined beyond their types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for operations across specifications' clearly states the action (search) and target (operations), but it's vague about scope and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'search-api-schemas' or 'get-api-catalog'. It doesn't specify what constitutes an 'operation' or how this search differs from other search tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-api-schemas' or 'load-api-operation-by-operationId', leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches but doesn't explain what 'search' entails—whether it's fuzzy matching, exact matches, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or return values, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'search for schemas' but doesn't explain what 'query' or 'specId' parameters mean, their formats, or how they interact. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search for') and resource ('schemas across specifications'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'search-api-operations', which searches for operations rather than schemas, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'load-api-schema-by-schemaName' or 'search-api-operations'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Refresh' implies a mutation or update operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is a read-only refresh, requires permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. It lacks details on what 'refresh' does beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Refresh the API catalog'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'refresh' (likely a mutation) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during refresh, the response format, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, this is acceptable, warranting a baseline score of 4 for adequate coverage in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Refresh the API catalog' states a clear action ('refresh') on a specific resource ('API catalog'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-api-catalog' or explain what 'refresh' entails operationally, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-api-catalog' or other siblings. There's no mention of prerequisites, frequency, or context for refreshing, so the agent must infer usage without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metadata but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the API catalog') and adds clarifying details about the catalog's contents. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from content explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but omits behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, response format, error handling) and doesn't reference sibling tools. For a tool in a context with multiple related tools and no structured safety hints, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information, but since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('API catalog'), and it explains what the catalog contains (metadata about OpenAPI specifications, operations, and schemas). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'refresh-api-catalog' (which might update the catalog) or 'search-api-operations' (which might filter operations), so it doesn't reach a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'refresh-api-catalog' for updating the catalog or 'search-api-operations' for filtering operations, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-openapi MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ReAPI-com/mcp-openapi/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ReAPI-com/mcp-openapi)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-openapi MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ReAPI-com/mcp-openapi/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ReAPI-com/mcp-openapi)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ReAPI-com/mcp-openapi'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server