Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dify-canvas-mcp

dify-canvas-mcp

by elegant01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

dify_apps

Lists Dify apps with IDs, names, types, and update times, supporting pagination and optional name filtering so other tools can reference an app by name.

Instructions

列出 Dify 应用（id、名称、类型、更新时间，支持分页和名称过滤）。其他工具的 app 参数可以直接写应用名称。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dify_apps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo可选。按名称模糊过滤。
pageNo页码，默认 1。
aliasNo可选。实例别名。
limitNo每页条数，默认 30，最大 100。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only listing by its wording and discloses which fields come back, but says nothing about authentication/alias scoping, ordering, whether a total count is returned, or behavior on an empty or non-matching result.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and returned fields, then the cross-tool tip. Dense but nothing wasted; the parenthetical field list is compact rather than verbose.

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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields in the description is the right compensating move, and all four optional parameters are handled by the schema. For a simple read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only pagination metadata and result ordering are unstated.

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% — every parameter (name, page, alias, limit) is already documented in the schema, including defaults and the max of 100. The description only restates that pagination and name filtering exist, adding no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("列出 Dify 应用") and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, update time) plus supported operations (pagination, name filtering). Siblings are canvas/run/instance tools with no competing list operation, so no explicit differentiation is required, but it also never names an alternative.

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 only implied: the tool is for discovering apps, and the cross-tool hint that other tools' `app` parameter accepts an app name is genuinely useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no guidance on when to page through results versus filter by name.

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