openapi-explorer-mcp

TypeScript types of an endpoint

api_types

Read-only

Generate TypeScript types for request, response, and parameters of any OpenAPI endpoint. Paste them directly into your project.

Instructions

Ready-to-paste TypeScript types for the request, response and parameters of an endpoint, generated from the spec with @hey-api/openapi-ts.

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_types"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`include`	No
`endpoint`	Yes	"METHOD /path", a path with a single operation, or a unique operationId
`name_prefix`	No	Prefix for generated type names

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 readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read-only operation, and the description adds the detail that types are 'generated from the spec with @hey-api/openapi-ts', which is a light behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention limitations, output format nuances, or whether generation fails, but it does not contradict the annotation either.

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 provides all essential information without filler. It characterizes output, scope (endpoint), and generation source in a compact way that an agent can scan and act upon.

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 and has no output schema, so the description must sufficiently convey what the agent will receive. 'Ready-to-paste TypeScript types' communicates the format well, but the description does not explicitly mention the optional `include`/`name_prefix` parameters or how the output is structured, relying on schema defaults. For a type generation tool this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Two of three parameters (`endpoint` and `name_prefix`) already have descriptions in the schema (67% coverage), so the base rating is a 3. The tool description adds value by listing 'request, response and parameters', which maps directly to the `include` enum and helps explain its semantics, but it does not deeply explain filtering, defaults, or how `name_prefix` affects output.

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 clearly states the tool generates TypeScript types for an endpoint, using the specific verb 'generates' (implied by 'Ready-to-paste') and naming the resource (types for request, response, and parameters). It distinguishes the purpose from siblings like api_schema, which would return raw schemas, but it does not explicitly name other siblings or state what this tool is not.

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 purpose statement implicitly suggests when to use it (when you need TypeScript types), but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor any mention of alternative tools like api_schema or api_endpoint. It leaves the choice of tool inferable from the context provided by sibling names, but without direct comparison.

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

Deploy Server