openapi-explorer-mcp

Call a GET endpoint

api_get

Read-only

Call a GET endpoint defined in an OpenAPI spec to retrieve data. Use for read-only API operations with path and query parameters.

Instructions

Calls a GET endpoint and returns the response. Read-only: the method is fixed.

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": {
      "endpoint": "<endpoint>"
    },
    "name": "api_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`as`	No	'auto' uses the first security alternative with configured credentials; 'anonymous' sends none; or a security scheme name from the spec	auto
`query`	No	Query-string parameters
`endpoint`	Yes	"METHOD /path", a path with a single operation, or a unique operationId
`identity`	No	Identity passed to the auth module, e.g. a user id
`path_params`	No	Path parameters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.2Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the useful constraint that the method is fixed to GET. It does not go further to explain auth selection, endpoint resolution, or response behavior despite openWorldHint being present.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior and read-only constraint are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

For a generic GET-calling tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves out response format, error behavior, and sibling-tool routing. The annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, but not these operational details.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a descriptive schema (e.g., endpoint is 'METHOD /path'). The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Calls') and a specific resource ('a GET endpoint'), and notes that it returns the response. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like api_endpoint or api_spec_info.

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?

'Read-only: the method is fixed' implies this is for safe GET requests and not for mutations, giving some context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusions or conditions.

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

Deploy Server