Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-swagger

mcp-swagger

by awssam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

getSecuritySchemes

Lists available authentication and authorization schemes (OAuth2, API keys, Bearer tokens) from the Swagger API documentation.

Instructions

Liste les schémas d'authentification/autorisation disponibles (OAuth2, API keys, Bearer tokens, etc.).

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": "getSecuritySchemes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation ('Liste') and specifies 'disponibles' (available), implying a filtered set. However, it does not disclose the return format, whether custom schemes are included, or any authentication requirements for calling the tool itself.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the verb 'Liste' and immediately specifies the resource. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource and examples. However, it could briefly hint at the response structure (e.g., 'returns a list of scheme names and types') to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the tool's domain (OAuth2, API keys, Bearer tokens) but no parameter-specific meaning is needed since there are none.

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 lists available authentication/authorization schemes, with concrete examples (OAuth2, API keys, Bearer tokens). The verb 'Liste' and resource 'schémas d'authentification/autorisation' make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like getSchemas.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use when you need to see supported auth methods' or reference any sibling tools. For a tool in a group with similar list-focused endpoints, this missing context is a gap.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools