Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
YAPI MCP Server

YAPI MCP Server

by W-Abel-jia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

yapi-get-interface

Retrieve detailed API interface specifications from YAPI using numeric IDs to access documentation, parameters, and endpoint information.

Instructions

获取接口详情，支持格式：数字ID

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "yapi-get-interface"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes接口ID，格式：数字ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools