yuque-mcp-plus

yuque_update_repo

Update repository metadata in Yuque knowledge base to modify name, slug, description, visibility, or namespace settings.

Instructions

Update repository metadata.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repoId`	No	Yuque repository ID.
`repoNamespace`	No	Yuque repository namespace.
`name`	No	Repository name.
`slug`	No	Repository slug.
`description`	No	Repository description.
`isPublic`	No	Whether the repository is public.

Implementation Reference

src/tools.js:453-453 (handler)
Handler for the yuque_update_repo tool, which calls the client's updateRepo method.
```
yuque_update_repo: async (args, client) => jsonText(await client.updateRepo(args)),
```

src/tools.js:288-301 (schema)

Schema definition for the yuque_update_repo tool.

{
  name: "yuque_update_repo",
  description: "Update repository metadata.",
  inputSchema: {
    type: "object",
    properties: {
      ...repoRefSchema(),
      name: schemaProperty("string", "Repository name."),
      slug: schemaProperty("string", "Repository slug."),
      description: schemaProperty("string", "Repository description."),
      isPublic: schemaProperty("boolean", "Whether the repository is public.")
    }
  }
},

Tool Definition Quality

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Update' implying mutation, but fails to disclose whether this performs a partial update (PATCH) or full replacement (PUT), does not mention idempotency, side effects, or return behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of a single 3-word sentence. While not verbose, it is under-specified to the point where the sentence fails to earn its place—it conveys no information beyond what is obvious from the tool name, representing under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the tool requires substantial descriptive context. The description fails to explain the partial update capability (all optional parameters), the identification mechanism for the repository, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent attempting to use the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic grouping by labeling the fields as 'metadata', but provides no additional context on parameter relationships (e.g., that repoId OR repoNamespace must be provided) or the partial update semantics implied by zero required parameters.

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 'Update repository metadata' restates the tool name ('yuque_update_repo') with minimal expansion. While it identifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('repository'), it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'yuque_update_repository_toc' or clarify what constitutes 'metadata' in this context versus other update operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring either 'repoId' or 'repoNamespace' to identify the target repository, despite having 6 parameters with 0 required fields.

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

Install Server

Latest Blog Posts

Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security
Open Source Has a Bot Problem
By punkpeye on March 19, 2026.
open source

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/MichealJou/yuque-mcp-plus'

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