Lists deprecated operations in a local OpenAPI/Swagger JSON or YAML file, not remote specs, to audit outdated API endpoints.
List deprecated operations in a local OpenAPI file. Reads a local OpenAPI/Swagger JSON or YAML file path only — does not fetch remote specs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Path to OpenAPI JSON/YAML. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the local-only constraint and the accepted input formats, and 'List' implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior on malformed specs, or result shape.
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, zero padding, with the core action and the most important constraint front-loaded in that order.
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-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the action and the input constraint adequately. A brief note on what a 'deprecated operation' result looks like would make it fully self-contained.
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?
There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that only a local file path is accepted (JSON or YAML), which adds the local-only nuance but little beyond what the schema already documents.
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+resource: it lists deprecated operations from an OpenAPI file. The scope is unambiguous, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools (summarize_by_tag, find_missing_auth, generate_cheat_sheet), which appear to operate on the same kind of input.
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?
The description sets a clear boundary — local file path only, no remote fetch — which implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies. However, it never contrasts itself with alternatives or states when a sibling tool would be the better choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.