openapi-md-mcp

get_endpoint

Read-only

Fetch markdown documentation for a specific API endpoint, covering authentication, parameters, request body, and response. Use method and path from list_endpoints to retrieve focused details.

Instructions

获取单个端点的 markdown 详情（鉴权、参数、请求体、响应）。method 大小写不敏感；键从 list_endpoints 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": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`method`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the missing behavioral traits: case-insensitive matching and the dependency on list_endpoints for key discovery. It doesn't describe rate limits or error behavior, but these are minor for a read-only detail fetcher.

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?

One compact sentence starts with the core action, uses a parenthetical for content, then adds two focused notes. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool 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?

Given two simple parameters, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the main behavior and parameter provenance. It omits only an explicit alternative-selection rule, which is a minor gap for a low-complexity tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the method is case-insensitive and that keys originate from list_endpoints. It does not spell out the path format, but the key-source hint is actionable for both parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool extracts markdown details for a single endpoint and enumerates the content (auth, params, request body, response). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'single endpoint' and referencing list_endpoints, without needing the schema to understand scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides explicit usage context: keys should come from list_endpoints, and method matching is case-insensitive. It does not explicitly list when to prefer get_endpoint over get_schema or select, so sibling routing is left partially implicit.

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

Deploy Server