Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apidog-mcp

apidog-mcp

by ixlammm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

apidog_list_modules

List modules in an Apidog project by providing a project ID and optional branch ID, with fallback to apidog.json configuration.

Instructions

List modules 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_modules"
  }
}

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List modules', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose details such as authentication requirements, pagination, return format, or any side effects. This is a significant gap.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary padding or redundancy.

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?

This is a relatively simple list tool with no output schema, and the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks context about what 'modules' means in Apidog, whether there are any prerequisites (like a configured apidog.json), or what the return structure is. Given the simplicity, it is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both branchId and projectId documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'modules in an Apidog project', making the tool's function obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apidog_list_api_tree or apidog_list_api_detail_folders, so it misses full distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons are provided. The description simply states the action without contextual usage directions.

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