MCP-Insomnia

import_from_openapi

Generate Insomnia requests and collections from OpenAPI/Swagger files. Provide file path, set base URL or collection name to customize.

Instructions

Generate requests from OpenAPI/Swagger specification

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "import_from_openapi"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`baseUrl`	No	Base URL to use for requests (overrides spec servers)
`filePath`	Yes	Path to OpenAPI spec file (JSON or YAML)
`collectionName`	No	Name for the new collection

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.2May 15, 2026
Removedv0.3.0May 1, 2026
First observedv0.4.0Jan 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only mentions the basic action without disclosing side effects (e.g., does it create a collection?). It lacks details on requirements, reversibility, or expected outcomes.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing key options) to improve scannability.

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?

For a tool that imports external specifications, the description is too sparse. It does not explain that the tool creates a collection, the significance of the collectionName parameter, supported file formats, or error handling. This leaves gaps for the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where schema does the heavy lifting.

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: generating requests from OpenAPI/Swagger specifications. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('generate requests from...') and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools that import from other formats (Curl, Postman, Insomnia export).

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 context (having an OpenAPI/Swagger spec file) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_from_postman or import_from_curl. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving inference to the user.

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