Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
swagger-mcp

swagger-mcp

by emreycolakoglu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get auth

get_auth
Read-only

Extract OAuth2 flows, scopes, API-key locations, and global security requirements from an OpenAPI/Swagger specification.

Instructions

Full security schemes for the API (OAuth2 flows, scopes, API-key locations) plus the global security requirement.

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": "get_auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specNoURL or local path of the OpenAPI/Swagger spec. Defaults to the server's configured API_DOCS_URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true; the description adds specifics about what is returned (OAuth2 flows, scopes, API-key locations, global security requirement), enhancing transparency beyond the annotation.

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?

Single sentence that is clear and front-loaded with the key output, containing no unnecessary 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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description sufficiently covers the return value; however, it could be more explicit about the output format, though not required.

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 only parameter 'spec' has a description in both schema and description, with the description adding the default behavior ('Defaults to the server's configured API_DOCS_URL'), providing extra value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns 'Full security schemes for the API' including OAuth2 flows, scopes, and API-key locations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_api_overview or get_endpoint.

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are provided; the description implies when to use it but does not exclude other tools or give context on when not to use it.

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