How do I use YApi MCP Server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@YApi MCP Server search for user-related interfaces" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

YApi MCP Server

by meilSop

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

yapi-mcp

YApi MCP Server —— 基于 Model Context Protocol（MCP）的 YApi 接口查询服务，通过 stdio 方式启动，可被 Trae、Codex 等 MCP 客户端直接集成。

功能概述

提供三个核心工具，帮助 AI 助手快速获取 YApi 上的接口信息：

工具名称	别名	说明
`get_api_list`	`yapi_list_interfaces`	获取项目完整接口列表
`get_api_detail`	`yapi_get_interface_detail`	根据接口 ID 获取详情
`search_api`	`yapi_search_interfaces`	按关键字搜索接口

旧名称和中文别名均可使用，功能完全相同。

Related MCP server: YApi MCP Server

环境要求

Node.js >= 18
可访问的 YApi 服务

快速开始

1. 安装依赖并构建

npm install
npm run build

2. 配置环境变量

复制 .env.example 为 .env，填入实际值：

YAPI_BASE_URL=http://127.0.0.1:3000
YAPI_TOKEN=replace-with-your-yapi-token
YAPI_PROJECT_ID=1

变量名	必填	说明
`YAPI_BASE_URL`	是	YApi 服务根地址，如 `http://127.0.0.1:3000`，不要填项目页面地址
`YAPI_TOKEN`	是	YApi 项目级 Token，在项目设置中获取
`YAPI_PROJECT_ID`	否	默认项目 ID，建议配置，可避免每次调用时手动传入

3. 启动服务

npm start

或开发模式（无需构建，直接运行 TypeScript）：

npm run dev

客户端配置

Trae

在项目根目录创建 .trae/mcp.json：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "yapi": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["${workspaceFolder}/dist/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "YAPI_BASE_URL": "http://127.0.0.1:3000",
        "YAPI_TOKEN": "replace-with-your-yapi-token",
        "YAPI_PROJECT_ID": "1",
        "START_MCP_TIMEOUT_MS": "60000",
        "RUN_MCP_TIMEOUT_MS": "60000"
      }
    }
  }
}

发布到npm上的使用方式

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "yapi": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "mcp-yapi"],
      "env": {
        "YAPI_BASE_URL": "http://127.0.0.1:3000",
        "YAPI_TOKEN": "replace-with-your-yapi-token",
        "YAPI_PROJECT_ID": "1",
        "START_MCP_TIMEOUT_MS": "60000",
        "RUN_MCP_TIMEOUT_MS": "60000"
      }
    }
  }
}

也可将上述 JSON 粘贴到 Trae 的 MCP 手动配置中实现全局配置。

Codex

在 ~/.codex/config.toml 或项目级 .codex/config.toml 中添加：

[mcp_servers.yapi]
command = "node"
args = ["/path/to/yapi-mcp/dist/index.js"]
cwd = "/path/to/yapi-mcp"
startup_timeout_sec = 20
tool_timeout_sec = 60

[mcp_servers.yapi.env]
YAPI_BASE_URL = "http://127.0.0.1:3000"
YAPI_TOKEN = "replace-with-your-yapi-token"
YAPI_PROJECT_ID = "1"

请将 /path/to/yapi-mcp 替换为项目的实际路径。

CodeBuddy

在 CodeBuddy 的 MCP 配置中添加：

本地项目方式：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "yapi": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/mcp-yapi/dist/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "YAPI_BASE_URL": "http://127.0.0.1:3000",
        "YAPI_TOKEN": "replace-with-your-yapi-token",
        "YAPI_PROJECT_ID": "1"
      }
    }
  }
}

npm 包方式：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "yapi": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "mcp-yapi"],
      "env": {
        "YAPI_BASE_URL": "http://127.0.0.1:3000",
        "YAPI_TOKEN": "replace-with-your-yapi-token",
        "YAPI_PROJECT_ID": "1"
      }
    }
  }
}

请将 /path/to/mcp-yapi 替换为项目的实际路径。

Cursor / VS Code + Cline 等

任何支持 stdio 模式的 MCP 客户端均可接入，核心配置项：

command: node
args: ["/path/to/mcp-yapi/dist/index.js"]
env: 按上方环境变量表格配置

工具详情

get_api_list / yapi_list_interfaces

获取指定 YApi 项目的完整接口列表，自动分页获取全量数据。

参数：

参数	类型	必填	说明
`projectId`	number	否	项目 ID，不传则使用环境变量 `YAPI_PROJECT_ID`

返回示例：

{
  "errcode": 0,
  "data": {
    "project_id": 1,
    "total_pages": 1,
    "fetched_count": 25,
    "list": [
      {
        "_id": 101,
        "title": "用户登录",
        "path": "/api/user/login",
        "method": "POST"
      }
    ]
  }
}

get_api_detail / yapi_get_interface_detail

根据接口 ID 获取完整详情，包含请求参数、响应结构等信息。

参数：

参数	类型	必填	说明
`id`	number	是	接口 ID

返回示例：

{
  "errcode": 0,
  "data": {
    "_id": 101,
    "title": "用户登录",
    "path": "/api/user/login",
    "method": "POST",
    "req_body_type": "json",
    "req_body_other": "{ ... }",
    "res_body_type": "json",
    "res_body": "{ ... }"
  }
}

search_api / yapi_search_interfaces

根据关键字搜索接口，使用 YApi 内置搜索 API 并进行本地精确匹配过滤。

参数：

参数	类型	必填	说明
`keyword`	string	是	搜索关键字，匹配接口名称和路径
`projectId`	number	否	项目 ID，不传则使用环境变量 `YAPI_PROJECT_ID`

返回示例：

{
  "keyword": "login",
  "total": 2,
  "list": [
    {
      "id": 101,
      "title": "用户登录",
      "path": "/api/user/login",
      "method": "POST"
    },
    {
      "id": 102,
      "title": "登录日志",
      "path": "/api/user/loginLog",
      "method": "GET"
    }
  ]
}

项目结构

yapi-mcp/
├── index.ts                  # 入口文件（含 shebang）
├── src/
│   ├── index.ts              # 加载 MCP Server
│   ├── config/
│   │   └── yapi.ts           # 环境变量解析与校验
│   ├── server/
│   │   └── mcp.ts            # MCP Server 初始化与 stdio 连接
│   ├── services/
│   │   └── yapi.service.ts   # YApi API 请求层
│   ├── tools/
│   │   ├── index.ts          # 工具注册入口
│   │   ├── getApiList.ts      # 接口列表工具
│   │   ├── getApiDetail.ts    # 接口详情工具
│   │   └── searchApi.ts       # 接口搜索工具
│   └── types/
│       └── yapi.ts           # 共享类型定义
├── .env.example              # 环境变量示例
├── .trae/mcp.json.example    # Trae 配置示例
├── package.json
└── tsconfig.json

npm 脚本

命令	说明
`npm run build`	编译 TypeScript 到 `dist/`
`npm start`	运行编译后的 `dist/index.js`
`npm run dev`	开发模式，使用 tsx 直接运行 TypeScript
`npm run check`	仅类型检查，不生成文件

常见问题

启动时报错 "Missing required environment variable"

请确保已正确配置 YAPI_BASE_URL 和 YAPI_TOKEN 环境变量。可在 MCP 客户端配置的 env 字段中设置，或创建 .env 文件。

搜索结果不准确

search_api 使用 YApi 内置搜索 API 获取结果后，会进行本地二次过滤以确保关键字精确匹配。如果结果仍不理想，可尝试使用更具体的关键字。

接口列表不全

get_api_list 会自动分页获取全量数据（每页 100 条），无需手动翻页。如果数据量特别大，可能需要等待更长时间。

参考

Available Tools

6 tools

get_api_detail获取 YApi 接口详情A

根据接口 ID 获取 YApi 接口详情，包含请求信息、响应结构等完整内容。

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	接口 ID

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the result includes request information and response structure, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or address permissions, errors, or other behavioral traits.

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, focused sentence that states the key information upfront without unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple single-parameter getter, the description includes some output details (request info, response structure) but lacks complete return value explanation or disambiguation from similar sibling tools. Given no output schema, the description could be more thorough.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with its description. The description only reinforces that the ID is used for lookup, adding no new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves YApi interface details by interface ID, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'yapi_get_interface_detail', which appears to serve the same purpose.

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 usage is implied: one should use this tool when they have an interface ID and need its details. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools, leaving differentiation to the agent.

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

get_api_list获取 YApi 接口列表A

获取指定 YApi 项目的完整接口列表。如果不传 projectId，则优先使用环境变量 YAPI_PROJECT_ID。

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	No

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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. It adds the environment variable fallback and the 'complete list' scope, but does not disclose response format, pagination, authentication, or side effects. For a read-only list tool the risk is low, but the description remains under-specified.

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 compact sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and a key operational detail without any wasted words.

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?

For a simple list-with-optional-filter tool, the description covers what it returns, the project scope, and the fallback behavior. It lacks response structure details, but that is acceptable given no output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema coverage, so the description compensates by noting projectId is optional and that YAPI_PROJECT_ID is used as a fallback. This adds useful meaning, but it does not elaborate on the parameter's type or source beyond the schema's exclusiveMinimum hint.

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 fetches the complete interface list for a specified YApi project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from search/detail siblings by emphasizing completeness, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named yapi_list_interfaces.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need the full interface list for a project. It also clarifies the behavior when projectId is omitted, falling back to YAPI_PROJECT_ID, which guides invocation. It does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

search_api搜索 YApi 接口B

根据关键字搜索 YApi 接口，使用 YApi 内置搜索 API，匹配接口名称和路径。

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keyword`	Yes	用于搜索接口名称或路径的关键字
`projectId`	No

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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. It discloses that the search uses YApi's built-in search API and matches names/paths, but it does not mention whether this is read-only, require authentication, or return paginated/summarized results. For a search operation, important behavioral context like result limits or scoping is missing.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and key behavioral detail (matching name and path). No fluff or repetitive content.

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?

For a simple search tool, the description gives enough to understand the core function, but gaps remain: projectId is unexplained, there is no mention of output format or error behavior, and confusion with sibling search tools is unresolved. Without an output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%; the keyword parameter has a description, but projectId is undocumented. The tool description adds no new meaning for keyword—it essentially repeats the schema's description. It provides zero explanation of projectId's purpose or constraints, so parameters remain unclear for half the inputs.

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 searches YApi interfaces by keyword, matching interface names and paths. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes from list/detail siblings by focusing on keyword search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling yapi_search_interfaces, which may serve the same purpose.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need to find interfaces by keyword rather than listing all or fetching details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the similar sibling yapi_search_interfaces, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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

yapi_get_interface_detail获取 YApi 接口详情B

根据接口 ID 获取 YApi 接口详情，包含请求信息、响应结构等完整内容。

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	接口 ID

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read ('获取') and mentions return content (request info, response structure), but does not clarify authentication needs, error behavior, or any limitations. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. No wasted words; all content is relevant.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the main purpose and return content. However, the phrase '等完整内容' is vague and does not enumerate specific fields, and there is no output schema to compensate. Still, it is complete enough for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, which is already described as '接口 ID'. The description adds context by explaining it fetches by ID, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: '根据接口 ID 获取 YApi 接口详情' (get YApi interface detail by interface ID), and specifies what it returns ('包含请求信息、响应结构等完整内容'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or search interfaces, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_api_detail'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context such as 'use this after obtaining an ID from a list tool' or 'for listing use get_api_list'. The usage is only implied by the ID parameter.

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

yapi_list_interfaces获取 YApi 接口列表B

获取指定 YApi 项目的完整接口列表。如果不传 projectId，则优先使用环境变量 YAPI_PROJECT_ID。

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	No

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the environment variable fallback, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how results are returned. This leaves notable gaps for a list operation.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds a useful parameter fallback note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose and parameter behavior, which is adequate for basic use. However, it omits details such as authentication requirements, error behavior, and return format, which would be needed for full completion.

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 schema only provides the type and minimum for projectId, with no description. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that projectId is optional and falls back to YAPI_PROJECT_ID when omitted, including the precedence behavior. This goes beyond the schema.

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 retrieves the complete interface list for a specified YApi project, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from detail and search siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar-sounding 'get_api_list'.

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 context: you use this to get all interfaces of a YApi project, with projectId optionally coming from an environment variable. However, it does not name alternative tools like search_api or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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

yapi_search_interfaces搜索 YApi 接口B

根据关键字搜索 YApi 接口，使用 YApi 内置搜索 API，匹配接口名称和路径。

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keyword`	Yes	用于搜索接口名称或路径的关键字
`projectId`	No

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it uses YApi's built-in search API and matches name/path, adding useful behavioral context. But it omits return format, pagination, or read-only confirmation.

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?

One concise sentence front-loads the core action and tacks on specific search scope. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity search tool, the purpose and search scope are covered. However, without an output schema, projectId semantics, or usage guidance, there are notable gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description reiterates the keyword's meaning already in the schema but adds no new parameter semantics. The optional projectId parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 searches YApi interfaces by keyword and specifies that it matches interface name and path. This differentiates it from list/detail siblings, though not from the sibling 'search_api'.

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 the tool is for keyword-based search by stating '根据关键字搜索', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer sibling tools like get_api_list or search_api.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

6 tool updatesv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026
- First observedget_api_detail
- First observedget_api_list
- First observedsearch_api
- First observedyapi_get_interface_detail
- First observedyapi_list_interfaces
- First observedyapi_search_interfaces

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Disambiguation1/5

Each unique functionality is duplicated with two nearly identical tools (e.g., get_api_list and yapi_list_interfaces). The descriptions are exactly the same, leaving no way for an agent to distinguish between them, which will cause misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use a 'get_' prefix (get_api_list, get_api_detail), while others use a 'yapi_' prefix with a different verb order (yapi_list_interfaces, yapi_get_interface_detail). There is no discernible uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

While the raw count is 6, this is inflated by exact duplicates. The server effectively exposes only 3 unique tools, and the redundancy suggests a lack of curation, making the count feel padded rather than purposeful.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is limited to read-only operations: list, detail, and search. There are no create, update, or delete operations, which are essential for a complete API management workflow, leaving significant gaps for agent tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

mcp-server
com.httpstatus
AI-callable tools for API mocking, testing, monitoring, security, and automation.
API Testing Testing & QA Tools App Automation
2
Cralo
ai.cralo
Pay-per-use tool marketplace for AI agents. Search, price-check, and call APIs via MCP.
Agent Orchestration Developer Tools
1
Orbit A
ai.buildwithorbit
Turn any task into the right API calls: discover, evaluate, and integrate public APIs.
Developer Tools API Testing
21
BotFriendly A
xyz.botfriendly
Directory of APIs, merchants, and tools AI agents can actually use.
Search Developer Tools
71

Related MCP Servers

RAP2 MCP Server
Documentation Access API Testing Search
MarveleE
A
license
A
quality
Not graded
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to access and search RAP2 API documentation, allowing users to query interface details, search APIs by keywords, and retrieve repository interfaces through natural language.
Updated a year ago (2025-09-16 09:53 UTC)
7
7
-
YApi MCP Server
API Testing Documentation Access Developer Tools
KO-Good-code
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables reading and searching API documentation from YApi instances, allowing AI models to access interface definitions, project API lists, and search through API endpoints using YApi URLs or project IDs.
Updated 9 months ago (2025-12-17 09:48 UTC)
15
MIT
YAPI MCP PRO
guocong-bincai
A
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
Enables direct interaction with YApi API management platforms from AI editors like Cursor and Claude Desktop, providing complete interface lifecycle management including browsing, creating, updating, and deleting API documentation.
Updated a year ago (2025-06-23 06:28 UTC)
16
22
MIT
YAPI MCP Server
API Testing Documentation Access Developer Tools
zhhbinn
A
license
C
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI assistants to manage YAPI API documentation by providing tools to create, update, and retrieve interface details. It also supports running automated tests and managing API data across multiple configured projects.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-04-23 02:41 UTC)
11
19
MIT

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/meilSop/mcp-yapi-server'

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