Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Astronomer MCP Server

Astronomer MCP Server

by leouofa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_openapi_spec

Retrieves the raw OpenAPI 3.1 specification for the Astronomer API, letting agents inspect endpoints and schemas for integration, automation, or client generation.

Instructions

Retrieve the raw OpenAPI 3.1 specification for the Astronomer API.

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": "get_openapi_spec"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey that the output is the unprocessed ("raw") 3.1-version spec, which implies no filtering or summarization, but it says nothing about response format (JSON vs YAML string), payload size, or whether the call is side-effect free.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the key qualifiers ("raw", "OpenAPI 3.1") are front-loaded where an agent will read them first.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose and spec version adequately. The only material gap is the shape/size of the returned document, which matters for an agent deciding whether to pull the whole spec into context.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the schema is trivially complete.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Retrieve") with a specific resource ("the raw OpenAPI 3.1 specification for the Astronomer API"), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not need to distinguish itself from siblings, none of which are specification/introspection tools, but it also makes no explicit contrast with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs schema/API documentation. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus when not to, and no note on whether the spec should be fetched once and cached rather than repeatedly.

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