Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-swagger

mcp-swagger

by awssam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

validateEndpointPath

Checks if an endpoint path exists in the API spec. If not, suggests similar paths to fix typos.

Instructions

Vérifie si un chemin d'endpoint existe. Si non, suggère des chemins similaires pour corriger les erreurs de frappe.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "validateEndpointPath"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesLe chemin de l'endpoint à valider (ex: /users/{id})

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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 discloses the key behavior of suggesting similar paths when the path does not exist, but it does not specify the return format, confirm the operation is read-only, or mention any error handling. This is a minimum viable level of transparency.

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 primary action (validating existence) and immediately adds the fallback behavior (suggesting similar paths). Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a list of suggestions, or an object). This leaves the agent uncertain about how to interpret the result, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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?

The single parameter 'path' is already fully described in the input schema with an example, and the tool description adds no additional semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool validates whether an endpoint path exists and, if not, suggests similar paths to correct typos. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like searchEndpoints or getEndpointDetails.

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 the tool should be used to verify endpoint path existence and get typo suggestions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like searchEndpoints or provide exclusions. Only implied usage is present.

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