YAPI MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The tools are organized around specific resources (categories, interfaces, projects) and actions (create, get, update), making it easy for an agent to select the right tool. For example, yapi-get-interfaces and yapi-get-interfaces-by-category serve different but complementary purposes without overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'yapi-' prefix, followed by a verb (create, get, update), then a noun (category, interface, project). This predictable structure enhances readability and makes the tool set easy to navigate. There are no deviations in naming conventions across the nine tools.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing YAPI resources. Each tool earns its place by covering essential operations like listing, creating, and updating interfaces and categories, as well as retrieving project information. This count is appropriate for the domain without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for core CRUD operations on interfaces and categories, and project listing. However, there are minor gaps, such as missing update and delete operations for categories and projects, which agents might need to work around. Overall, it supports key workflows but isn't fully comprehensive.
Average 2.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
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 status not available
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '新增 YAPI 接口' only indicates this is a creation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether this is a mutating/destructive operation, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a complex creation tool with 14 parameters, this is completely inadequate 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise (only 4 Chinese characters), this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase doesn't provide enough information to be helpful, and every description should earn its place - this one doesn't. It's too brief to be useful for tool selection or invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex creation tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides minimal information about what the tool does and nothing about behavior, usage context, or expected outcomes. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description is completely inadequate and fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for effective tool use.
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%, with all 14 parameters having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds zero parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
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 '新增 YAPI 接口' (Add YAPI interface) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'yapi-create-interface' in Chinese. It provides the basic verb ('新增' meaning create/add) and resource ('YAPI 接口' meaning YAPI interface), but doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'yapi-update-interface' or provide any specificity about what kind of interface creation this performs.
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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus 'yapi-update-interface', or any context about the relationship with sibling tools like 'yapi-create-category' or 'yapi-get-interfaces'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '修改' (modify) implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or the response format. For a complex update tool with 15 parameters, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
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 extremely concise with just three Chinese characters. While this represents severe under-specification for such a complex tool, from a pure conciseness perspective it's maximally efficient with zero wasted words. Every character earns its place by conveying the core action, though it fails to provide necessary additional 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 tool's complexity (15 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what permissions are needed, how partial updates work, or how it differs from sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the description fails to provide the contextual information needed for an agent to use this tool effectively in practice.
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 coverage is 100%, with all 15 parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.
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 '修改 YAPI 接口' (Modify YAPI interface) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'yapi-update-interface' in Chinese. It provides the verb 'modify' and resource 'YAPI interface', but doesn't specify what aspects can be modified or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'yapi-create-interface'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity and differentiation.
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. There are multiple sibling tools for YAPI interfaces (create, get, update), but the description doesn't indicate this is for updating existing interfaces versus creating new ones, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an interface ID. It offers no context about appropriate use cases 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence ('获取 YAPI 项目信息') that is front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but it earns high marks for brevity.
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's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., project details, metadata) or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no output schema, the description should compensate by describing return values, but it fails to do so.
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 has 100% description coverage (the 'projectId' parameter is documented as '项目ID' - project ID), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a project ID is, where to find it, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取 YAPI 项目信息' (Get YAPI project information) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('YAPI 项目信息' - YAPI project information), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'yapi-get-project-list' which likely retrieves multiple projects versus this tool's single-project focus. The description is vague about what specific project information is retrieved.
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 doesn't mention when to use 'yapi-get-project' (for single project details) versus 'yapi-get-project-list' (for listing projects) or other sibling tools. There's no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate scenarios for invocation.
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 of behavioral disclosure. '新增' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't state permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase in Chinese ('新增 YAPI 接口分类') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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 this is a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., the new category ID), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. The context signals indicate moderate complexity (3 parameters, 2 required), but the description lacks necessary details for safe and effective use.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (name, project_id, desc) with descriptions in Chinese. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 '新增 YAPI 接口分类' clearly states the action (新增/create) and resource (YAPI 接口分类/YAPI interface category) in Chinese. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'yapi-create-interface' which creates interfaces rather than categories.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'yapi-get-categories' for listing categories or 'yapi-create-interface' for creating interfaces within categories.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' categories, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is (e.g., list structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
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 in Chinese ('获取项目的接口分类列表') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with zero wasted content.
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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication needs, output format) and usage guidelines. While the schema covers the parameter, the overall context for an agent to effectively use this tool is insufficient, especially compared to siblings that might offer overlapping functionality.
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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter 'projectId' is documented as '项目ID'), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics, such as where to find the projectId or valid ranges, but the schema adequately covers the basics.
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 '获取项目的接口分类列表' clearly states the action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('接口分类列表' meaning 'interface category list'), specifying it retrieves categories for a project. It distinguishes from siblings like 'yapi-get-project' (gets project details) and 'yapi-get-interfaces' (gets interfaces), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'yapi-get-interfaces-by-category', which might overlap in context. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid projectId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'yapi-get-interfaces-by-category' (which might fetch interfaces filtered by category). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation (获取/get) but doesn't specify whether it's paginated, the format of the returned list, error conditions, or any rate limits. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, clear sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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's complexity (a filtered list operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, fields), pagination, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('分类ID/category ID'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond implying the parameter is used for filtering, which is already clear from the schema. With 0 parameters needing extra explanation, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract but also doesn't add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取指定分类下的接口列表' clearly states the action (获取/get) and resource (接口列表/interface list) with a scope (指定分类下/under specified category), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'yapi-get-interfaces' (which presumably gets all interfaces without category filtering), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
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 like 'yapi-get-interfaces' or 'yapi-get-interface'. It mentions the category scope but doesn't explicitly state that this is for filtered listing by category versus other listing methods, nor does it mention 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'get'), authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('获取接口详情'), followed by a brief constraint ('支持格式：数字ID'). It uses only one sentence with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned (e.g., interface name, parameters, responses) or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as '接口ID，格式：数字ID' (interface ID, format: numeric ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, merely restating the format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 purpose: '获取接口详情' (get interface details) with the specific resource '接口' (interface). It distinguishes from siblings like yapi-get-interfaces (list interfaces) and yapi-get-interfaces-by-category (filtered list). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the verb 'get' in English, though the meaning is clear from context.
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 by specifying '支持格式：数字ID' (supports format: numeric ID), which suggests this tool is for retrieving details of a specific interface by its ID. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like yapi-get-interfaces (for listing) or yapi-update-interface (for modifications), leaving some ambiguity.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches a project list but doesn't add any context about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 ('获取 YAPI 项目列表') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output, which are needed for a complete understanding despite the simple schema.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.
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 '获取 YAPI 项目列表' clearly states the action ('获取' meaning 'get' or 'fetch') and resource ('YAPI 项目列表' meaning 'YAPI project list'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'yapi-get-project' (which likely fetches a single project), missing full sibling differentiation.
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. With siblings like 'yapi-get-project' (for a single project) and 'yapi-get-interfaces' (for interfaces), there's no indication of context, exclusions, or prerequisites for choosing this list-fetching tool over others.
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 full burden. It states the tool retrieves all interface lists, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details like output structure or error handling, which are important for a tool with no annotations or output schema.
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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'projectId' documented as '项目ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 '获取项目的所有接口列表' clearly states the action (获取/获取) and resource (接口列表), specifying it retrieves all interfaces for a project. It distinguishes from siblings like yapi-get-interface (singular) and yapi-get-interfaces-by-category (filtered by category), though not explicitly named. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the tool name.
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 needing all interfaces for a project, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like yapi-get-interfaces-by-category or yapi-get-interface. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than clearly defined.
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:

[![yapi-interface-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/W-Abel-jia/yapi-interface-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/W-Abel-jia/yapi-interface-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yapi-interface-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/W-Abel-jia/yapi-interface-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/W-Abel-jia/yapi-interface-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/W-Abel-jia/yapi-interface-mcp'

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