Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
swagger-mcp

swagger-mcp

by emreycolakoglu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get schema

get_schema
Read-only

Resolve a named schema from an OpenAPI spec; nested schemas appear as reference markers to expand.

Instructions

Resolve one named schema. Nested named schemas are shown as { "$schema": "Name" } markers — call get_schema again to expand them.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesSchema name as shown by list_schemas.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds behavioral context about nested schema markers and the need for recursive calls, which is beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description explains the critical behavior about nested schema markers but does not detail error handling or response structure. For a simple read tool with annotations, this is fairly 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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses the specific verb 'resolve' and resource 'one named schema', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_schemas (list all) and search_schemas (search). It also adds unique behavior about nested schema markers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent to call get_schema again to expand nested schemas, providing a clear usage pattern. However, it does not mention when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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