A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceLoads and queries OpenAPI/Swagger documents, providing tools to list APIs, get details, search endpoints, and manage schemas for efficient API exploration.
4
MIT
mcp-server-saxo-openapi
by nohikomiso
This server is a read-only reference and knowledge base for the Saxo Bank OpenAPI, designed to help AI agents understand and generate Saxo Bank API code — it does not execute trades or modify portfolios.
Search endpoints (
search_saxo_endpoints): Discover Saxo Bank OpenAPI endpoints by keyword (e.g., "orders", "positions", "instruments").Get endpoint specifications (
get_saxo_endpoint_spec): Retrieve detailed parameter specs, request/response JSON samples, and critical warnings for a specific endpoint by HTTP method and path (e.g.,POST /trade/v2/orders). Supports adepthparameter for nested details.Get schema specifications (
get_saxo_schema_spec): Drill into nested data schemas referenced from endpoint specs, with configurable depth for exploring complex object structures.Get workflow guides (
get_saxo_workflow_guide): Access step-by-step guidance for complex multi-step operations, currently supportingclose_positionandif_done_ocoworkflows.Access pitfalls documentation (
saxo://docs/pitfalls.md): Read a curated guide covering Saxo-specific quirks such as netting, ForceOpen close, Stop/StopIfTraded order types, IsForceOpen flag, UIC identifiers, and Precheck behavior.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcp-server-saxo-openapisearch for endpoints related to orders"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Saxo Bank OpenAPI MCP Server
A specialized Model Context Protocol (MCP) server acting as a reference manual and knowledge base for the Saxo Bank OpenAPI.
Version: 0.3.5 · Spec snapshot: 2026-07-08
Purpose
This server is not an execution client. It does NOT execute trades, place orders, or modify portfolios.
It helps AI agents generate Saxo Bank API code by combining:
Rich endpoint specs from crawled
spec/json(nested parameters, request/response samples).Critical warnings on dangerous endpoints (
/orders,/positions).saxo://docs/pitfalls.md— survival guide for Saxo-specific quirks.
Related MCP server: swagger-api-mcp-server
Tools
Tool | Description |
| Discover endpoints by keyword. |
| Parameters, samples, warnings. |
| Drill into nested schemas. |
|
|
Resources
URI | Description |
| Netting, ForceOpen close (§1b), Stop/StopIfTraded, IsForceOpen, UIC, Precheck. |
Installation
MCP (Cursor / Claude Desktop)
{
"mcpServers": {
"saxo-openapi": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["mcp-server-saxo-openapi"]
}
}
}CLI fallback
uvx --from mcp-server-saxo-openapi saxo-doc-helper search-endpoints orders
uvx --from mcp-server-saxo-openapi saxo-doc-helper get-endpoint POST /trade/v2/orders --depth 1What changed in 0.3.0
0.2.0 mistakenly used a single saxo_openapi.json for lookup (shallow schemas). 0.3.0 restores the rich spec/json index while keeping pitfalls and warnings from 0.2.0.
See CHANGELOG.md.
Known limitations
Warnings are advisory; agents may skip
pitfalls.md.response_parameterstrees are sparse in some crawled specs;response_sampleJSON is more reliable.Pitfalls reflect practical experience; not a substitute for Saxo's official docs.
License
MIT — see LICENSE.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_saxo_endpoint_specC
Get parameter specs and JSON samples for a Saxo Bank OpenAPI endpoint.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| depth | No | ||
| method | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description gives no behavioral details such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or performance characteristics. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail. It earns its place but could be expanded without becoming overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and 3 parameters (2 required) with no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for effective use, such as parameter formats or the nature of the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the 3 parameters (path, depth, method). The description does not explain any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'parameter specs and JSON samples for a Saxo Bank OpenAPI endpoint'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_saxo_schema_spec (schema) and search_saxo_endpoints (search) by specifying endpoint specs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context compared to siblings like get_saxo_workflow_guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_saxo_schema_specC
Get nested schema parameters referenced from endpoint specs.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| schema_name | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool retrieves data, but does not mention idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise, but could be more informative without losing conciseness. It is appropriately sized but lacks front-loading of critical detail.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and existence of an output schema, the description provides a basic understanding. However, missing usage guidelines and parameter semantics leave gaps for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. The phrase 'nested schema parameters' hints at the role of schema_name and depth, but does not explicitly explain the depth parameter or how the schema_name is used. The description is insufficient to compensate for missing schema descriptions.
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 'Get nested schema parameters referenced from endpoint specs' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (nested schema parameters), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_saxo_endpoint_spec which retrieves endpoint specifications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_saxo_endpoint_spec or search_saxo_endpoints). The description lacks any context about prerequisite conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_saxo_workflow_guideC
Get workflow guidance for complex Saxo operations (close_position, if_done_oco).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| use_case | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool 'gets workflow guidance', but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, idempotency, authentication needs, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with 12 words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from additional details without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on parameter semantics and usage context. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions example use cases (close_position, if_done_oco) but does not explain the 'use_case' parameter format, allowed values, or constraints. With only one parameter, the description should fully compensate but does not.
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 specifies that this tool provides workflow guidance for complex Saxo operations like close_position and if_done_oco. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_saxo_endpoint_spec, get_saxo_schema_spec, search_saxo_endpoints) which focus on endpoint specs or schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely implies it's for 'complex Saxo operations' but lacks explicit usage context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_saxo_endpointsC
Search for Saxo Bank OpenAPI endpoints by keyword.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only states 'Search', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description fails to add meaningful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 9 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary detail. However, it could include more information in the same space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values, but it lacks context such as the scope of search, potential omissions, or behavior with no results. For a search tool, more completeness is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage—the 'query' parameter has no description beyond its name. The description merely says 'by keyword', adding no semantic value about the format, constraints, or intended use of the query parameter.
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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Saxo Bank OpenAPI endpoints', indicating it is a search tool. While it distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve specs or schemas, it could be more specific about the search scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_saxo_endpoint_spec, get_saxo_schema_spec, get_saxo_workflow_guide). There is no indication of prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: endpoint specs, schema specs, workflow guides, and search. There is no overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Three tools use 'get_saxo_' prefix while one uses 'search_saxo_'. The pattern is mostly consistent, with a minor deviation.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools are well-suited for this niche API documentation server, providing essential operations without unnecessary clutter.
Completeness4/5
The set covers endpoint specs, schema details, workflow guidance, and search. A minor gap could be a tool for listing all endpoints, but search largely compensates.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Remote MCP for 1,500+ APIs. Vault-managed credentials; OAuth or API key. Search, load, and execute.
Search, document and execute authenticated API calls across 700+ apps via one MCP server
327 dev tools via REST API and MCP. Generate Dockerfiles, schemas, K8s, APIs, and more.
MCP server for AI access to Swagger by SmartBear.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceParses Swagger 2.0 and OpenAPI 3.x specifications, exposing API endpoints, schemas, and authentication through MCP tools with local caching to reduce token usage.11271MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for loading and exploring OpenAPI/Swagger specifications, enabling AI assistants to dynamically browse API contracts by loading specs, searching endpoints, inspecting schemas, and retrieving operations.263MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA read-only MCP server for navigating OpenAPI / Swagger specifications, enabling agents to search endpoints, retrieve parameters and schemas, and inspect authentication without loading the full spec into context.919MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nohikomiso/mcp-server-saxo-openapi'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server