Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
swagger-mcp

swagger-mcp

by emreycolakoglu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Search endpoints

search_endpoints
Read-only

Search OpenAPI endpoints by substring across path, summary, description, tags, and parameter names. Returns relevant matches ranked by relevance.

Instructions

Substring search over endpoint path, summary, description, tags, and parameter names. Returns matches ranked by relevance.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_endpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specNoURL or local path of the OpenAPI/Swagger spec. Defaults to the server's configured API_DOCS_URL.
queryYesCase-insensitive substring to match.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the tool is safe and scoped. The description adds that it returns matches ranked by relevance, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the action and scope, second sentence states the output behavior. Information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and full parameter coverage, the description adequately covers search behavior and ranking. It could mention default for spec parameter (already in schema) or absence handling, but overall complete for a search tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the fields searched (path, summary, etc.), which is not in the parameter descriptions. This helps the agent understand the query parameter's effect.

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 clearly states it performs substring search over endpoint path, summary, description, tags, and parameter names, and returns matches ranked by relevance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_endpoints (no search) and search_schemas (different resource).

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 description implies when to use (to find endpoints by substring), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling tool names provide some differentiation, but no direct guidance on choosing between similar tools.

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