swagger-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
list_projects and list_services both list registered services, creating overlap, though descriptions distinguish them by detail. describe_component and describe_common_types both deal with component schemas, which could cause misselection. Other tools are clearly distinct.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (add_project, list_projects, describe_api), but 'help' is a standalone verb and 'diff_apis' uses an unconventional verb. Minor deviations from an otherwise consistent style.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for managing OpenAPI services, fitting the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a specific aspect of the domain without bloat.
Completeness3/5
The set covers registration, listing, and detailed descriptions, but lacks update/delete operations for projects and a general component listing tool. These are notable gaps for a complete lifecycle, though core workflows are supported.
Average 3.3/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers no details about output format, scope, authentication, or what 'registered services' means. The description does not go beyond the basic action and leaves behavioral expectations unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity sacrifices important context and contributes to the ambiguity with sibling tools.
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?
For a no-parameter, low-complexity list tool, the description is nearly minimal, but it is incomplete in context: it fails to clarify the relationship between 'projects' and 'services' and does nothing to distinguish itself from list_services. Without an output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value.
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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are automatically satisfied. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('List all registered services') but the resource ('services') does not match the tool name ('projects'), and the sibling list_services likely duplicates this exact action. This mismatch and lack of differentiation make the purpose misleading rather than clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only provides a bare action phrase, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context and compare against siblings like list_services on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') but does not elaborate on what 'detailed info' includes, potential authentication needs, error conditions, or side effects. The behavior is under-specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, it is brief to the point of missing valuable context.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of sibling describe tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify what information is returned, how it differs from describe_component/describe_common_types, or any usage context. A more complete description would address these gaps.
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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (serviceName, path, method) with 100% coverage. The description's reference to 'specific API endpoint' adds minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 tool's function: retrieving detailed information about a specific API endpoint. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('API endpoint'), but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like describe_component or describe_common_types.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states only the action 'Get' and the resource, without disclosing response format, error behavior, or possible side effects. The vagueness of 'common' and 'shared' adds ambiguity.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Get'. It contains no wasted words and is easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool has a single parameter and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain what 'common' means, what the returned schemas look like, or how this differs from describe_component, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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 schema describes serviceName as 'Service name (projectId)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Get common response schemas and shared types from components'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like describe_api and describe_component, which target different resources.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions or refer to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not mention return format, error handling, or any side effects. It only states the lookup intent, leaving the agent with no information about what happens on success or failure.
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 sentence that uses every word effectively. It is front-loaded and direct, 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 two well-described parameters, but since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the lookup returns or how it behaves. The current description only covers the basic purpose and misses usage context and behavioral details, making it minimally adequate but not complete.
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 schema description covers 100% of the two parameters (serviceName and refs), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a slight contextual hint with 'by $ref paths', but does not elaborate on parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the action ('Look up'), the resource ('component schemas'), and the method ('by $ref paths'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like describe_api and describe_common_types by focusing specifically on component schemas and $ref lookup.
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?
The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_api or describe_common_types. It simply states what it does without providing context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List APIs' without elaborating on permissions, return format, pagination, or the meaning of 'simplified'. Minimal behavioral transparency.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It has no filler or redundant content, and is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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 description is mostly adequate for a simple list tool given the schema and lack of annotations, but the term 'simplified' introduces ambiguity about the response format. Without an output schema or further elaboration, the description feels incomplete regarding what exactly is listed.
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 schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including serviceName as 'Service name (projectId)'. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states 'List APIs for a service', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_services (lists services) and describe_api (describes a single API). The '(simplified)' qualifier does not obscure the intended action.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or when to prefer list_apis over describe_api or other siblings. Only the schema's required serviceName hints at usage, but that is not explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects or behavior. It only says 'Register a new OpenAPI service' without mentioning whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a project with the same ID exists, or if any permissions are required. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a write operation.
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, front-loaded sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose with minimal waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation 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?
For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to convey basic behavioral context like return value or side effects. It does not. While the schema covers parameter meaning, the overall context is incomplete for an agent to understand the full impact of invoking this tool.
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 provides clear descriptions for all three required parameters ('Display name', 'URL to OpenAPI spec', 'Unique project identifier'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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 clearly states the action ('Register') and the resource ('a new OpenAPI service'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are mostly read-only operations like list_projects and describe_api.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned, but the verb 'Register' and the contrast with the read/diff sibling tools imply this is for creating a new project/service. The usage context is reasonable to infer, though not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the tool compares, but it doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, what the output format looks like, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that may interact with registered services.
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 action ('Compare') and includes the key objects (current spec, registered service, new source). No wasted words.
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?
Despite low complexity and full schema coverage, the description omits important context such as the expected return type (diff output?), error behavior, and whether the operation has side effects. Since no output schema exists, the description should explain the result of the comparison, but it doesn't.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage): serviceName as the registered service name and newSource as the spec source. The description's phrasing ('registered service' and 'new source') aligns with the schema but adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the tool's function: comparing a registered service's current spec against a new source. The specific verb 'compare' and references to 'registered service' and 'new source' distinguish it from sibling tools that list or describe resources.
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 usage context—when you need to compare specs before updating—but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisite conditions like service existence or source accessibility. Sibling tools have different purposes, so the intended use is inferable but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'with API groups' hints at return structure, but the description does not disclose pagination, ordering, permissions, or potential limitations. It is minimal but not misleading.
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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output grouping.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description gives a high-level indication of the return value ('services with API groups') but lacks specifics about the structure or contents of each service. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.
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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description need not explain any parameters. It adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
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 'List registered services with API groups' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('services'), and adds a qualifier ('with API groups') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_apis and list_projects. This is a clear, actionable statement of the tool's function.
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 its use for retrieving services but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. The resource type provides implicit differentiation from sibling tools, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor describe the output format. For a simple help tool this is mostly sufficient, but lacks explicit side-effect disclosure.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary details.
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 parameterless help tool with no output schema and simple behavior, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool does. It could optionally mention that it lists all tool names and suggests a usage order, but these are not essential for a tool of this simplicity.
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 has zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. There is nothing to explain; the baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter information is needed beyond what the schema already shows.
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 uses the specific verb 'Show' with clear resources: 'available tools' and 'recommended workflow'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on projects, services, and APIs, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 when to use it—when you need to see what tools exist or how to proceed—but does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this first' or 'use instead of X', so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![swagger-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yunhwane/swagger-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yunhwane/swagger-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![swagger-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yunhwane/swagger-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yunhwane/swagger-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yunhwane/swagger-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server