@kedoupi/yapi-mcp

yapi_get_categories

Retrieve categories for a project by ID to organize and manage YApi interfaces.

Instructions

Get categories for a specific project

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID to get categories for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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.

Deploy Server