Swagger MCP Adapter

list_services

Loads a Swagger/OpenAPI specification from a URL to list all available API services and prepare them for caching.

Instructions

List all available API services from the Swagger/OpenAPI specification and prepare for caching

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "swaggerUrl": "<swaggerUrl>"
    },
    "name": "list_services"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`swaggerUrl`	Yes	URL of the Swagger/OpenAPI specification to load

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'prepare for caching' side effect but does not explain what this entails, whether it mutates state, or what the response contains.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, but the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves gaps about return values and the caching behavior. The description is adequate for basic understanding but vague on important details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully documents the only parameter (swaggerUrl) with a clear description, and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 ('List all available API services') and the source ('Swagger/OpenAPI specification'), and adds a distinct caching preparation aspect. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_all_service_information.

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?

The description implies a use case (preparing for caching) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no stated exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server