Syncretica MCP Server

get_openapi_spec

Retrieve the raw OpenAPI 3.1 specification for the Syncretica API to inspect endpoints, schemas, and request formats before building integrations or generating client code.

Instructions

Retrieve the raw OpenAPI 3.1 specification for the Syncretica 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

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 must carry behavioral disclosure; 'Retrieve' and 'raw' imply a non-destructive, unparsed read, which is useful. It does not state the serialization format (JSON vs YAML), whether the response is paginated or size-limited, or that it reflects the live vs static spec.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word ('raw', '3.1', 'Syncretica') adds precision.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (the raw OpenAPI 3.1 spec). Only minor gaps remain, such as response format and whether the full document or a subset is returned.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve the raw OpenAPI 3.1 specification') plus the target API (Syncretica), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. No sibling covers this, so sibling differentiation isn't required, but it doesn't distinguish itself from generic spec-fetching assumptions either.

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 strongly implied — call this to introspect the Syncretica API surface — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. For a self-evident discovery tool this is acceptable but thin.

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