Swagger MCP

by Vizioz

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: fetching documentation, listing endpoints, getting endpoint details, executing requests, and validating responses. The descriptions make it easy to tell them apart, as they target different stages of the API workflow.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., fetch_swagger_info, list_endpoints, execute_api_request). The naming is predictable and readable throughout, with no deviations in style or convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of interacting with Swagger/OpenAPI documentation and APIs. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects of the workflow, from discovery to execution and validation.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain: it supports fetching documentation, listing and detailing endpoints, executing requests, and validating responses. There are no obvious gaps, and agents can handle the full API lifecycle without dead ends.
Average 3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
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

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 the tool executes an API request but fails to describe critical traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies data), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that could perform destructive operations like DELETE.
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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a general-purpose tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if it were more comprehensive.
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 executing arbitrary API requests (with potential for mutations, auth needs, etc.), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool selection by an AI agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide examples), resulting in a baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states the action ('execute') and resource ('API request to a specific endpoint'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of API or system this targets, and it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_swagger_info' or 'validate_api_response', which might involve similar API interactions but for different purposes.
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 (e.g., for testing or production calls), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the generic name and parameters alone, which is insufficient given the presence of sibling tools like 'get_endpoint_details' or 'list_endpoints'.
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 what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—such as whether it makes network requests, handles errors, returns structured data, or has any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's operation.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex API documentation. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., JSON/YAML structure), potential errors, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the single parameter ('url') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, but this is acceptable given the high schema 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('Swagger/OpenAPI documentation'), and indicates what it's used for ('to discover available API endpoints'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'list_endpoints' or 'get_endpoint_details', which might have overlapping functionality.
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 'list_endpoints' or 'get_endpoint_details'. It mentions the purpose but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between these related tools.
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 the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned details. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by directly stating the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values, which could be a gap, but the description focuses on the input aspect, making it borderline complete for a basic read operation.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('path' and 'method'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that these inputs identify a 'specific API endpoint', which is already inferred from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides adequate documentation.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific API endpoint'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_swagger_info' or 'list_endpoints', which likely provide similar API information but with different scopes or formats.
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 'fetch_swagger_info' (which might retrieve broader API documentation) and 'list_endpoints' (which might list endpoints without details), the description lacks context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage 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. It states the tool validates responses but doesn't explain how validation works (e.g., returns validation errors, success/failure status), what happens on failure, or any side effects. For a validation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, validation logic) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but fails to provide critical context like validation outcomes, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (path, method, statusCode, responseBody). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Validate an API response against the schema from Swagger documentation'. It specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource 'API response', making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_api_request' or 'fetch_swagger_info', which might handle related but distinct operations.
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 (e.g., needing Swagger documentation loaded), context (e.g., after an API call), or exclusions. With siblings like 'execute_api_request' and 'fetch_swagger_info', this lack of differentiation leaves usage ambiguous.
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 mentions that endpoints are listed 'after fetching Swagger documentation', hinting at a dependency or sequence, but it doesn't describe what 'list' entails (e.g., format, pagination, or if it's a read-only operation). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 that front-loads the core action ('List all available API endpoints') and adds necessary context ('after fetching Swagger documentation'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and sequence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity is low (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and hints at a sequence, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavior (e.g., what 'list' returns, any side effects). For a simple listing tool, it's minimally viable but could be more complete by clarifying the output or dependencies.
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% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't introduce confusion or redundancy.
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 ('List all available API endpoints') and the resource ('API endpoints'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'fetch_swagger_info' by specifying it operates 'after fetching Swagger documentation', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'get_endpoint_details'.
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?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'after fetching Swagger documentation', suggesting a prerequisite or sequence, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_endpoint_details' or 'execute_api_request'. No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
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:

[![Swagger-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vizioz/Swagger-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vizioz/Swagger-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Swagger-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vizioz/Swagger-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vizioz/Swagger-MCP)

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/Vizioz/Swagger-MCP'

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