openapi-md-mcp

list_endpoints

Read-only

List all API endpoints with their HTTP methods, paths, and summaries to gain a full overview, then dive into specific endpoint or schema details as needed.

Instructions

列出 API 全部端点（方法/路径/摘要表）。了解 API 全貌的第一步；需要细节时用 get_endpoint / get_schema 按键下钻。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_endpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotation only declares readOnlyHint, which is about side effects. The description adds that the tool returns a table of endpoints, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as performance, pagination, or filtering behavior. It goes slightly beyond the annotation but not significantly.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('list all API endpoints') and then provides context for sibling tools. There is no unnecessary detail, and it is efficiently structured.

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?

The description gives enough context for a simple list tool: it states what it does and when to use it. However, it omits any explanation of the optional 'tag' parameter, which could be relevant for filtering. This slight gap prevents a perfect score, but overall the tool's purpose and usage are well covered.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The only parameter 'tag' is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not mention the parameter at all, providing no meaning or usage guidance for it. With 0% schema coverage and no description mention, parameter semantics are critically lacking.

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's purpose: it lists all API endpoints with method/path/summary table. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as the first step and explicitly pointing to get_endpoint/get_schema for details, which helps an agent select it appropriately.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (as the first step for an API overview) and when to use alternatives (when details are needed, use get_endpoint/get_schema). This provides clear guidance on tool selection relative to siblings.

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

Deploy Server