Update basic information of a YAPI interface by modifying only specified fields. Useful for changing title, path, method, or status while preserving other details.
更新 YAPI 接口的基本信息（仅更新指定字段）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 接口 ID | |
| desc | No | 接口描述 | |
| path | No | 接口路径 | |
| catid | No | 接口分类 ID | |
| title | No | 接口标题 | |
| method | No | 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 burden. It usefully discloses that only the specified fields are modified, implying other fields are preserved. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, whether changes are reversible, and the response shape for a mutation tool.
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?
A single compact sentence with the scope qualifier in parentheses, front-loaded and waste-free. It is arguably terse for a mutation tool, but nothing is redundant.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not cover permissions, side effects, or how it relates to yapi_update_interface. The schema documents parameters well, but the behavioral context an agent needs to pick and call this correctly is thin.
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% — all 7 parameters are documented in the schema with Chinese labels. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: updating a YAPI interface's basic information. The parenthetical '仅更新指定字段' signals partial-update scope, which helps distinguish it from the sibling yapi_update_interface, though that sibling is never named explicitly.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the name and the 'basic info / specified fields only' phrasing that this is the lightweight partial-update variant versus yapi_update_interface, but no condition or exclusion is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.