Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-swagger

mcp-swagger

by awssam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

getServerUrls

Fetch available server URLs and their environments (dev, staging, prod) from an OpenAPI specification.

Instructions

Récupère les URLs des serveurs disponibles et leurs environnements (dev, staging, prod, 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": "getServerUrls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (retrieves URLs and environments) but does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication, or any side effects. The verb implies read-only, but this is not explicit. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff. Every word is meaningful, and the structure is optimal.

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 parameterless retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient for invocation: it tells the agent what data it will receive (server URLs and environments). It could be slightly more explicit about the return structure, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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, leading to a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema confirms there are none. No additional semantics are required or provided.

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 retrieves server URLs and their environments (dev, staging, prod, etc.). The verb 'récupère' is specific, and the resource is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on endpoints, schemas, and tags by focusing on server URLs/environments.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: you would use this tool when you need server URLs or environments. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings, nor any mention of exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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