Analyze OpenAPI specifications to identify documentation quality issues, returning a score and list of problems to fix.
Analyze OpenAPI spec documentation quality. Returns a score and list of issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | No | Limit analysis to a specific spec name. | |
| limit | No | Max number of issues to return (default: 50) | |
| severity | No | Minimum severity to include (default: "warning") | warning |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that a score and issue list are returned, but it does not mention read-only behavior, score range, issue categories, severity handling, or limits. The behavioral picture is minimal.
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 short sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary action and then the return value. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and three optional parameters, the description is too sparse. It omits what the score range is, what kinds of issues are reported, how severity and limit apply, and when a caller should prefer this over sibling tools.
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%, with each parameter already documented including defaults, constraints, and enum values. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries that weight, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as analyzing OpenAPI spec documentation quality and returning a score with issues, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get-endpoint-docs and search-endpoints. It is not a tautology, though the exact notion of 'quality' is left somewhat vague.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The agent must infer from the name and schema that this is for quality assessment, which is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.