Load and validate an OpenAPI spec from a file path or URL, then list its operations to map available API endpoints.
Load and validate an OpenAPI spec (file path or http(s) URL) and list its operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| operations | Yes | ||
| openapi_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating operation, lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds the source types (file path or http(s) URL) and the resulting behavior (list operations), but says nothing about validation failure behavior, auth requirements for remote URLs, or latency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content; every clause (sources, validation, operation listing) earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple single-parameter read. The description covers the essential call contract; only error/validation-failure semantics are omitted, which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the lone parameter is titled only 'Spec', so the description must compensate. It does add key meaning by specifying the accepted formats (file path or http(s) URL), but does not clarify relative/absolute path expectations or URL constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verbs (load, validate, list) on a clear resource (OpenAPI spec) and names the accepted source formats. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling tools like 'doctor' or 'generate_harness', which an agent might reasonably confuse or pair with this one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the purpose (inspect a spec before generating a harness or running chaos), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative selection guidance, and no mention of how it relates to the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.