@kedoupi/yapi-mcp

yapi_create_category

Create a new API category in a YApi project to organize API interfaces. Specify the name and project ID, with an optional description.

Instructions

Create a new API category

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "yapi_create_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`desc`	No	Category description
`name`	Yes	Category name
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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.

Deploy Server