Skip to main content
Glama
vp2437

OpenAPI REST MCP Server

by vp2437
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

api_patch

Send PATCH requests to REST API endpoints to apply partial updates to existing resources, with support for request bodies, query parameters, and custom headers.

Instructions

PATCH request to an API endpoint

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesAPI URL — absolute (https://host/path) or relative to the environment baseUrl (e.g. /users)
dataYesRequest body data
paramsNoQuery parameters
headersNoCustom headers (merged on top of config + auth headers)
maxCharsNoMax characters in the returned text (0 = unlimited; defaults to config.maxResponseChars).
environmentNoEnvironment name (defaults to the active environment)
includeHeadersNoInclude sanitized response headers in the result (default: false).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.3.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only names the HTTP method. It does not mention authentication, side effects, response format, error behavior, or how the request body is handled, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 terse sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the HTTP method and is appropriately compact for a simple API client tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only states the HTTP method. It omits return value behavior, error cases, authentication context, and any operational guidance, making the description incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all seven parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema already covers semantics, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific HTTP verb and resource: it performs a PATCH request to an API endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like api_get, api_post, api_put, and api_delete by the HTTP method.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as api_post or api_put. It does not mention PATCH semantics like partial updates, nor does it describe any conditions or prerequisites for use.

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