@kedoupi/yapi-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources/actions (projects, categories, interfaces). Some overlap exists between get_interface_menu, get_categories, and list_category_interfaces, but descriptions and parameter differences likely clarify their unique purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent yapi_verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_projects, create_interface, delete_interface). Minor variations like get_interface_menu vs get_categories still adhere to the same verb_noun structure, making the naming predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for an API management platform. Each tool covers a meaningful operation without unnecessary redundancy, fitting the ideal range for a focused MCP server.
Completeness4/5
The interface lifecycle is well-covered (create, read, update, delete, search, list). Minor gaps exist such as lack of project update/delete or category delete, but core workflows are operational and import/cache support adds practical utility.
Average 3.2/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
As annotations are absent, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action with no mention of required fields, permissions, response format, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 one-sentence description is concise but under-specified for an 11-parameter tool. It lacks structure and additional context, falling into the under-specification category.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not explain what happens on success, error conditions, or required project/category context. Without an output schema, the description should clarify return values, but it does not.
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%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with resource 'API interface', clearly conveying the action. It distinguishes from update/delete siblings by the create verb, though it lacks scope details like target project.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yapi_update_interface or yapi_search_interfaces. No preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and gives no information about idempotency, required permissions, error handling, or return values, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. However, it is under-specified, lacking important operational details, so conciseness is achieved at the expense of useful information.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is only six words. It does not explain what a category is, how it fits into the YAPI hierarchy, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool confidently.
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 input schema already describes all three parameters (name, project_id, desc) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships or constraints, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 identifies the action ('Create') and resource ('API category'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like yapi_create_interface. However, it does not elaborate on what an API category is or how it relates to projects, so it stops short of a 5.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing project) or contrast with related tools like yapi_get_categories, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get categories' and gives no information about return format, error behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly disclosed, and no additional behavioral context is provided.
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. It states the action and scope without unnecessary words or repetition of the tool name. Every word earns its place.
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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal but lacks important context such as return structure, edge cases, or clarifications to disambiguate from similar sibling tools. It is sufficient only for the most basic use case and does not fully prepare an agent for correct invocation.
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% (project_id is described in the schema). The description adds no new information beyond the schema, which already explains the parameter. According to the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and there is no extra semantic value in the description.
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 tool gets categories for a specific project, using the specific verb 'get' and resource 'categories'. It is distinct from siblings like yapi_get_projects or yapi_get_interface, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar category-related tools like yapi_get_interface_menu.
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. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as yapi_get_interface_menu or yapi_list_category_interfaces, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, what 'detailed information' includes, or any prerequisites or failure modes. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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 with no redundant words. It is appropriately short for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description. It does not clarify the nature of the returned data, usage context, or relationship to sibling tools. For a single-parameter get operation, some explanation of expected output or use cases is needed.
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 covers 100% of the parameter description, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates 'specific API interface' but adds no additional meaning about the interface_id parameter or its usage.
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 a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('API interface'), indicating it retrieves details for a specific interface. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like yapi_get_interface_menu, the purpose is unambiguous.
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 vs alternatives such as yapi_search_interfaces or yapi_get_interface_menu. The description only provides a generic statement with no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action 'search' and the vague 'various filters' without revealing read-only nature, pagination behavior, response structure, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is concise but so terse that it sacrifices informative value; as a stand-alone statement it is efficient yet lacks depth.
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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description must explain search behavior, filter semantics, and return format. It provides none of that, leaving major gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool or interpret results.
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 coverage is 100%, with each of the 5 parameters described and constrained (e.g., page limits, default values). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the vague 'various filters', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies 'API interfaces' as the resource, making the core action clear. However, it lacks scope and does not differentiate from sibling tools like yapi_list_category_interfaces or yapi_get_interface_menu, which also retrieve interfaces.
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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for cross-project search, nor does it reference sibling tools for specific use cases, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates an interface, without revealing whether it performs a partial or full update, what happens if the interface does not exist, whether all required fields must be present, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral information for a mutation tool.
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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, and the action verb is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward update operation. However, given the tool's complexity (12 params), one might expect a bit more context, but conciseness itself is well-executed.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description that does not explain return values, error behavior, or preconditions. The complexity of the tool (12 parameters, 6 required) means the description should offer more context about what the update does, what it returns, and any caveats, making this inadequate for a complete tool understanding.
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 input schema covers 100% of the 12 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is complete, the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also doesn't enrich the meaning beyond the structured fields.
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 and resource: 'Update an existing API interface.' It distinguishes from the create/delete/get siblings through the explicit 'update' action and 'existing' qualifier. However, it is somewhat generic and doesn't mention which fields or aspects can be updated, though the schema complements this.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that creating new interfaces should use yapi_create_interface, deleting should use yapi_delete_interface, or any prerequisites or context for updating. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and side-effect behavior, but it only says 'Import' without explaining whether it overwrites, merges, is reversible, or requires authentication. The sync_mode parameter hints at merge/overwrite behavior, but the description does not elaborate on consequences.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it appropriately concise and structured.
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?
Despite having a detailed schema, the context is incomplete: no output format, no side-effect disclosure, no edge cases or prerequisites. The tool is a mutation with significant overwrite/merge potential, and the description alone leaves the agent underinformed.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It adds minimal context by referencing 'external sources' but otherwise relies on 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 ('Import') and the resource ('interface data from external sources'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/update/delete by focusing on importing external data, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should be avoided. The description simply states the function without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action but fails to mention irreversibility, required permissions, or potential side effects, leaving the agent without safety-critical context.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words, perfectly concise for a one-parameter delete tool.
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 (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits essential context for a destructive operation, such as irreversibility and potential impact on related data, which would be expected even for a simple tool.
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 coverage is 100% for the interface_id parameter, which is already described as 'Interface ID to delete'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 a specific action ('Delete'), the resource ('API interface'), and the identifier ('by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, update, and get.
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, prerequisites, or caveats. For example, it does not mention that deletion is permanent or whether dependent resources must be removed first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether pagination is supported, or any rate limits; the minimal wording relies on the name for implied behavior.
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 gets directly to the purpose. It is suitably brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple list tool, the purpose is clear, but the description omits usage guidance and behavioral context. Given no annotations or output schema, it would benefit from stating that it returns a paginated list of interfaces for the given category.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'Get interfaces within a specific category', identifying the verb (get), resource (interfaces), and scope (category). This distinguishes it from siblings like yapi_get_interface for a single interface and yapi_search_interfaces for cross-category search.
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. The description only states what it does without mentioning contexts, exclusions, or better-suited siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and gives a hint about the return structure ('with category structure'), but it does not elaborate on the exact format, whether project_id is optional, or any potential errors.
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 sentence of seven words, front-loading the key action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not rich. It would benefit from clarifying what an 'interface menu' is and how it relates to the sibling list tools, but it allows an agent to understand the tool's function.
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 has full coverage for the single parameter (project_id) with a straightforward description. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter, but none is needed as the schema is explicit.
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 it gets an interface menu list and specifies the category structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like yapi_get_interface (single interface) and yapi_get_categories (raw categories).
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 instead of alternatives such as yapi_list_category_interfaces or yapi_get_categories. The description gives no context about appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the effect ('force fresh data retrieval') but does not mention potential side effects such as performance impact, scope (global vs per-user), or whether the operation is safe/idempotent. The information is minimal but not misleading.
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 sentence, immediate and to the point: 'Clear the internal cache to force fresh data retrieval.' It states both the action and the rationale without padding, earning a top score for conciseness.
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?
For a zero-parameter cache-clearing utility, the description provides the core purpose and effect, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks finer contextual guidance (e.g., when this is needed relative to other operations), but given the simplicity of the tool, the description is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids fabricating parameter details. The empty schema is fully covered by the absence of parameters.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Clear the internal cache') and clearly states the intended effect ('force fresh data retrieval'). It is distinct from sibling tools that perform CRUD or import operations, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical scenarios like 'after updates' or 'to verify changes', nor does it advise against overuse. Without this context, an agent may not know the appropriate timing for invoking cache clearing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no further behavioral details are disclosed (e.g., return format, pagination, or auth requirements). For a zero-parameter list tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's extremely low complexity—no parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation—the description is complete. It states what it returns and is fully comprehensible in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter information. According to the calibration guidelines, 0 parameters means a baseline of 4, since there is nothing to document.
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 'Get list of available YApi projects' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('projects'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle categories, interfaces, or search. It fully states what the tool does.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_interfaces, but the simple 'Get list' implies it is the default for retrieving all projects. No exclusions or additional context are provided, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yapi-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kedoupi/yapi-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kedoupi/yapi-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![yapi-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kedoupi/yapi-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kedoupi/yapi-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kedoupi/yapi-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server