Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
swagger-mcp

swagger-mcp

by emreycolakoglu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List endpoints

list_endpoints
Read-only

List all API endpoints with method, path, summary, and tags from an OpenAPI spec. Filter by tag to narrow results.

Instructions

Compact index of endpoints (method, path, summary, tags). Optionally filter by tag.

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": "list_endpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoOnly list endpoints with this tag.
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds context about return fields (method, path, summary, tags) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like ordering, pagination, or error conditions.

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, front-loaded with core concept ('Compact index of endpoints'), no redundant words. Highly efficient.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the response format (method, path, summary, tags) and filtering. Could be improved by mentioning ordering or that it lists all endpoints when no tag is provided, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema. Description restates the tag parameter as 'optionally filter by tag', adding no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 it provides a compact index of endpoints with method, path, summary, and tags, and optionally filters by tag. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_endpoint (single endpoint) and search_endpoints (search-based), making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

Description implies usage for quick overviews with optional tag filtering, but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_endpoints or get_endpoint. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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