Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@kedoupi/yapi-mcp

@kedoupi/yapi-mcp

by kedoupi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

yapi_delete_interface

Delete a specific API interface from YApi by its ID to remove outdated or incorrect endpoints and keep documentation accurate.

Instructions

Delete an API interface by ID

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": {
      "interface_id": "<interface_id>"
    },
    "name": "yapi_delete_interface"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
interface_idYesInterface ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools