Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apollo-mcp-server

apollo-mcp-server

by iceycn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_item

Add a new configuration key-value pair to a namespace in Apollo Configuration Center. Requires app, environment, cluster, namespace, and creator details.

Instructions

新增配置项。key 长度不超过 128 字符，value 不超过 20000 字符。

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": {
      "appId": "<appId>",
      "env": "<env>",
      "clusterName": "<clusterName>",
      "namespaceName": "<namespaceName>",
      "key": "<key>",
      "value": "<value>",
      "dataChangeCreatedBy": "<dataChangeCreatedBy>"
    },
    "name": "create_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdYes
envYes
clusterNameYes
namespaceNameYes
keyYes
valueYes
dataChangeCreatedByYes
commentNo可选

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only discloses length limits. It does not mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, auth requirements, or side effects like notifications. For a mutation tool, critical behaviors are missing.

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 with two sentences, no filler. However, it could be better structured by grouping parameter explanations.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks return value information, error handling, and parameter interplay, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 13%, yet the description only clarifies two parameters (key, value). The remaining 6 parameters (appId, env, clusterName, namespaceName, dataChangeCreatedBy, comment) have no description or added semantics, leaving the agent to guess their role.

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 this tool creates a configuration item ('新增配置项'), and adds specific constraints for key and value lengths, distinguishing it from siblings like create_app or delete_item.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_item or delete_item. The description does not mention prerequisites, required context, or suitable scenarios.

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