apidog-mcp

apidog_get_openapi

Exports an OpenAPI specification from an Apidog project, supporting JSON and YAML formats and OAS versions 2.0, 3.0, and 3.1.

Instructions

Alias for apidog_export_openapi.

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_get_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

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Alias for apidog_export_openapi' reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, return values, or operational characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short but under-specified. It is not conciseness with substance; it omits almost all meaningful content while providing only a cross-reference.

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?

This is an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line description that adds no behavioral, parametric, or return-value context. The definition is grossly insufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is only 25%, and the description adds zero parameter information. None of the 8 parameters (e.g., branchId, oasVersion, environmentIds) are explained or contextualized, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance for invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description only says 'Alias for apidog_export_openapi,' which identifies the tool as an alias but does not state what it does. The actual purpose of exporting an OpenAPI specification is implicit and depends on knowledge of another tool.

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 given on when to use this tool versus apidog_export_openapi or other sibling tools. The alias reference implies substitutability but provides no explicit usage context 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