Updates a complete YAPI interface definition, intelligently deciding whether to create a new entry or modify an existing one based on the provided ID and details.
更新 YAPI 接口的完整定义（智能判断新增或更新）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 接口 ID | |
| desc | No | 接口描述 | |
| path | Yes | 接口路径 | |
| catid | Yes | 接口分类 ID | |
| title | Yes | 接口标题 | |
| method | Yes | 请求方法 | |
| status | No | 接口状态 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only one behavioral trait — that the tool intelligently decides between adding and updating — but does not explain overwrite semantics, required permissions, side effects, or what happens to existing fields. For a mutation tool this is a substantial gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the core purpose, though it could carry a bit more critical context without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation/upsert tool with 7 parameters, 5 required, no annotations, and no output schema. The description states the basic purpose but omits behavioral details, prerequisites, and guidance needed to invoke it correctly relative to its siblings, leaving it incomplete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: '更新 YAPI 接口的完整定义' (update the complete definition of a YAPI interface). The adjective '完整定义' implicitly differentiates it from the sibling yapi_update_interface_basic, but it does not explicitly name the sibling or otherwise distinguish itself from the other update/add tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yapi_update_interface_basic or yapi_add_interface. The parenthetical '智能判断新增或更新' hints at upsert behavior but does not tell the agent when this is preferred or what exclusions apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.