@mcpx-digital/openapi-summarize

find_missing_auth

Scans a local OpenAPI/Swagger file to find operations lacking security requirements, helping audit API authentication gaps without remote fetching.

Instructions

Find operations missing security/auth requirements in a local OpenAPI file. Reads a local OpenAPI/Swagger JSON or YAML file path only — does not fetch remote specs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "find_missing_auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filePath`	Yes	Path to OpenAPI JSON/YAML.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses a key behavioral constraint: it reads a local path only and will not fetch remote specs. That prevents an agent from passing a URL. It still doesn't clarify what counts as 'missing' auth or how results are returned, so it isn't complete.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the local-file constraint immediately following. No filler, no restatement of the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only, single-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its main input constraint. Given the absent output schema, a brief note on the shape of results would help, but it is close to complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Path to OpenAPI JSON/YAML'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Find operations missing security/auth requirements in a local OpenAPI file.' The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling analysis tools like summarize_by_tag and list_deprecated. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and description, and the 'local file path only' constraint narrows the intended scenario. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings or what prerequisites (e.g., a valid spec) are needed, leaving the agent to infer the context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server