YAPI MCP Server

Get YAPI Data by URL

yapi_get_by_url

Parses a YAPI page URL and retrieves the corresponding API documentation data, supporting project, interface, and category URLs.

Instructions

Parse a YAPI page URL and fetch the corresponding data automatically. Supports project URLs (/project/{id}/interface/api), interface URLs (/project/{id}/interface/api/{interfaceId}), and category URLs (/project/{id}/interface/api/cat_{catId}).

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "yapi_get_by_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Full YAPI page URL, e.g. http://yapi.example.com/project/1/interface/api/100

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.2May 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 supported URL patterns and the automatic fetch behavior, but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a fetch tool, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 states the purpose and then lists the supported patterns. Every sentence is necessary, and no extra words are used.

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?

Given one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential: what URLs work. It could mention fallback behavior or error responses, but for a simple fetch tool, it is reasonably complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant context by specifying the exact URL formats and examples (e.g., project, interface, category URLs). This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Full YAPI page URL' description.

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 it parses a YAPI page URL and fetches corresponding data automatically, and enumerates three specific URL patterns it supports (project, interface, category). This differentiates it from sibling tools like yapi_get_project or yapi_get_interface, which require specific IDs rather than URLs.

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 when a YAPI page URL is available, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like yapi_get_project or yapi_get_interface. There is no mention of when NOT to use it or any prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server