Fetch and summarize Swagger/OpenAPI documentation for a specified environment. Returns a concise text summary, with optional character limit.
Fetch and summarize Swagger/OpenAPI documentation for an environment
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxChars | No | Max characters in the returned text (0 = unlimited; defaults to config.maxResponseChars). | |
| environment | No | Environment name (defaults to the active environment) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose what 'summarize' entails (e.g., whether it returns a brief overview, includes endpoint lists, or truncates content), whether authentication is required, or any side effects. The lack of detail about output format and operational behavior is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it's also under-specified. It's not front-loaded with key information; the most distinctive aspect ('summarize') is buried in the middle. While brevity is good, the lack of structure and detail makes it less effective than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and only a short description, the definition is incomplete. An agent cannot determine the return format, the difference between 'fetch' and 'summarize', or how this relates to the other swagger_* tools. The description fails to provide enough context for correct invocation and interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptions (maxChars and environment). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't clarify how maxChars interacts with 'summarize' or how the environment default works, but the schema already covers the basics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb ('Fetch') and a resource ('Swagger/OpenAPI documentation for an environment'), so it's not a tautology. However, it's generic and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like swagger_list_endpoints or swagger_get_schema, which also deal with Swagger docs. The word 'summarize' adds some specificity but leaves ambiguity about the exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the other swagger_* siblings. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would favor this over alternatives. The agent is left to infer from the name alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.