openapi-md-mcp

get_batch

Read-only

Fetch multiple endpoints and schema property details, merging referenced schemas into a shared appendix with deduplication. Accepts up to 40 unique mixed keys.

Instructions

批量获取端点详情与 schema 属性表，引用的 schema 自动整合为共享附录（去重）。keys 混合 "METHOD /path" 端点键与 schema 名（去重后 ≤40 个）；键从 list_endpoints / select 获得。

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": {
      "keys": "<keys>"
    },
    "name": "get_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keys`	Yes
`include_refs`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description matches (batch get). The description adds non-obvious behavioral details: automatic deduplication of referenced schemas into a shared appendix, a hard limit of 40 keys after dedup, and the mixed key format. This exceeds the baseline provided by the readOnly hint.

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 sentences, each adds distinct value: the first states the core operation and dedup behavior; the second specifies key types, source, and limits. No fluff, efficient front-loading, and the most critical constraint (≤40) is highlighted.

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?

The output schema covers return format, so that's adequate. The description covers the key parameter well but leaves include_refs unexplained. Given the tool is a batch utility with siblings, the missing parameter explanation and the lack of explicit when-to-use guidance make it only partially complete.

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 for both parameters. It thoroughly explains 'keys' (format, source, dedup, cap) but completely omits 'include_refs'. The missing semantics for a boolean parameter that likely controls whether the shared appendix is included is a significant 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 states a clear purpose: batch retrieval of endpoint details and schema property tables, with referenced schemas integrated into a shared appendix. It distinguishes itself from singular siblings like get_endpoint and get_schema by explicitly being a batch operation, though it doesn't name alternatives directly.

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 provides guidance on where keys come from ('list_endpoints / select'), implying the intended use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool instead of get_endpoint or get_schema, nor does it describe conditions for not using it. The batch nature is evident but the routing logic is left implicit.

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

Deploy Server