apidog-mcp

apidog_export_openapi

Export OpenAPI specifications from Apidog projects, with options for OAS version, JSON/YAML format, and specific branches or modules.

Instructions

Export OpenAPI from Apidog.

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": "apidog_export_openapi"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`branchId`	No	Optional Apidog branch ID. Falls back to apidog.json.
`moduleId`	No
`projectId`	No	Apidog project ID. Falls back to apidog.json.
`oasVersion`	No		3.1
`exportFormat`	No		JSON
`environmentIds`	No
`addFoldersToTags`	No
`includeApidogExtensionProperties`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, output behavior, or permissions. The phrase 'Export OpenAPI' is simply a restatement of the tool's name without additional behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While extremely concise, it provides minimal information; it could benefit from a bit more detail while remaining concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only states the basic action. It fails to explain what the export produces (file? string?), fallback behavior, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for such a complex tool.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters. With only 25% schema description coverage, the tool description should compensate by explaining key parameters like exportFormat or addFoldersToTags, but it remains silent.

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 action ('Export') and the resource ('OpenAPI from Apidog'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'apidog_get_openapi', which also deals with OpenAPI retrieval, so it is not fully distinctive.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'apidog_get_openapi' or 'apidog_import_openapi'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server