openapi_discoveryProbe conventional paths on a target URL to discover and summarize OpenAPI/Swagger documents without exposing full contents.
Probe a bounded list of conventional paths and summarize OpenAPI/Swagger documents without returning their full contents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| paths | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attempts | Yes | ||
| documents | Yes | ||
| document_count | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond them: it summarizes rather than returns full document contents, and that probing is confined to a bounded path list. Useful but thin given 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and its output-limiting constraint both land immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema covers the return shape, so the description need not explain those. However, with 0% parameter descriptions and no usage routing among 50+ siblings, an agent still lacks context on what url should point to and when to reach for this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Bounded list of conventional paths' partially explains the paths array (constrained to maxItems 10 by the schema), but the url parameter's role as the target base is never clarified and no path format examples are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: probes conventional paths and summarizes OpenAPI/Swagger documents. It is clearly distinct from the security-focused openapi_security_analysis in intent, though it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. An agent must infer that this is a discovery step preceding openapi_security_analysis, and there is no mention of prerequisites, target types, or alternatives among the many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.