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

apollo-mcp-server

by iceycn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_namespace

Create a namespace in Apollo Configuration Center by specifying app ID, name, format, and public status.

Instructions

创建 Namespace。format 仅支持 properties、xml、json、yml、yaml。

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>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "format": "<format>",
      "isPublic": "<isPublic>",
      "dataChangeCreatedBy": "<dataChangeCreatedBy>"
    },
    "name": "create_namespace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdYes
nameYes
formatYes
isPublicYes
dataChangeCreatedByYes
commentNo可选

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the format constraint but omits potential side effects (e.g., idempotency, permission requirements, behavior on duplicate namespace).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is overly terse at two sentences, sacrificing essential information for brevity. It lacks detail on parameter roles, return values, or error handling, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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?

With six parameters (five required), no output schema, and minimal description, the tool definition is inadequate. Missing return value specification and error conditions leave the agent uncertain about expected outcomes.

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 17%, and the description does not compensate. It only repeats the enum values for format, leaving critical required parameters like appId, name, isPublic, and dataChangeCreatedBy undocumented.

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 states '创建 Namespace' which clearly identifies the action and resource. The format limitation is explicitly mentioned, distinguishing it from sibling create tools like create_app or create_cluster.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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