Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
YAPI MCP Server

YAPI MCP Server

by AlwaysLoveme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get YAPI Project Info

yapi_get_project

Retrieve basic project details such as name, description, base URL, and environment configurations by providing a project ID.

Instructions

Get project basic information including name, description, base URL, and environment configurations.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "yapi_get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe YAPI project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or error handling. Minimal 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?

Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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?

Adequate for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter. Lacks details on prerequisites, error conditions, or expected behavior for invalid inputs.

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 already describes the single parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; lists return fields but that is not parameter-specific.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves project basic information, listing specific data fields. It distinguishes from siblings by the resource (project info) but does not explicitly differentiate from other yapi tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yapi_get_by_url or yapi_get_full_menu. The description lacks usage context or exclusions.

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