Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apidog-mcp

apidog-mcp

by ixlammm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

apidog_list_environments

Lists all environments for an Apidog project. Provide project ID and optional branch ID to retrieve environment details.

Instructions

List environments in an Apidog project.

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": "apidog_list_environments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
branchIdNoOptional Apidog branch ID. Falls back to apidog.json.
projectIdNoApidog project ID. Falls back to apidog.json.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List environments' which adds little beyond the tool name and gives no information about authentication, return format, fallback behavior, or other operational implications.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is zero wasted phrasing and it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, has no required parameters, and schema covers parameters fully. However, there is no output schema and annotations are absent, so the description could have mentioned what is returned or any fallback behavior. It is minimally adequate for a basic list operation.

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% with both parameters (branchId and projectId) having their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing about the parameters, and no extra value is provided beyond the schema.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('environments in an Apidog project'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from all listed siblings, none of which mention environments.

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, and no exclusions or context are given. The description simply states the function without any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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