Yuque MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.4
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are distinct (get vs list vs create vs delete), but the four group stats tools (group_stats, group_member_stats, group_book_stats, group_doc_stats) have overlapping names and could be confused for one another. All other tools have clearly separated purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
The dominant pattern is yuque_verb_noun (e.g., get_repo, create_doc, list_docs). The four group stats tools break this by using group_..._stats without a verb, and yuque_hello is an outlier. Overall, naming is mostly consistent with minor deviations.
Tool Count3/5
With 25 tools, this is at the upper boundary of a heavy toolset. The domain covers repos, docs, groups, members, versions, TOC, stats, and search, but several stats tools could be consolidated. It is not bloated, but it is slightly over the typical well-scoped range.
Completeness3/5
Repos and docs have full CRUD coverage, plus TOC, versions, and search. However, there is no group creation/deletion, no way to add a member (only remove/update), and no features like comments or attachments. These are notable gaps for a collaborative knowledge base platform.
Average 3.3/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether the update is partial or full, side effects, permissions, or what the API returns, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 description is a single sentence, which is concise in word count, but it under-specifies a tool with six parameters and no output schema. This is under-specification rather than efficient brevity.
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 tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is inadequate. It fails to explain update semantics, return value, or preconditions, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke it correctly.
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 parameters with descriptions (e.g., 'New document content', 'New document slug'), so the schema already carries the semantic load. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies given full schema coverage.
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 'Update an existing document' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (document), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from create/delete/get siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_doc or delete_doc. The description is a bare statement with no context for selection or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete a repo/book,' giving no information about permanence, cascading effects, authentication requirements, or what happens to contained docs. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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, to-the-point sentence with no fluff. It's concise, but its extreme brevity leaves out essential details, so it doesn't earn the higher score of 5.
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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no context about side effects, return values, or constraints. For a delete operation, this is critically incomplete.
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% for the single parameter, so the schema adequately explains `id_or_namespace`. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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 action ('Delete') and resource ('repo/book'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/update/get. However, it lacks scope details (e.g., permanent deletion) that would make it fully specific.
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 (e.g., yuque_delete_doc) or any prerequisites. It simply states the action without 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not mention authentication, scope, return format, or any potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation support.
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 information. It is concise and well-structured for its minimal content.
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 being a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the statistics contain, how results are returned, or how this tool differs from closely related sibling stats tools, making it incomplete for effective use.
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%, with 'login' already described as 'Group login name'. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get document statistics for a group/team', which essentially restates the tool name. It lacks specifics about what 'document statistics' means and does not differentiate from sibling tools like yuque_group_stats or yuque_group_book_stats.
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 gives no context, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent without direction for tool 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether deletion is permanent, if it is irreversible, what happens to associated data, or any error conditions. The phrase 'Delete a document' merely restates the tool's name without adding transparency.
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 with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it is minimal.
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 tool is a deletion operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should mention side effects, permission requirements, or return values. It does none of these, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the full impact of 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%, with both repo_id and doc_id having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already documents the parameters clearly, so the description does not need to compensate.
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 'Delete a document' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_doc, create_doc, and update_doc by specifying the delete operation, but it lacks any additional scope details such as 'from a repository'.
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, such as when a document should be permanently removed versus updated. It does not mention prerequisites like permissions or conditions, offering only the implied use case of deletion.
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 present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention return format, data scope, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a stats endpoint.
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 short sentence that is easily understood and front-loaded. It earns its place with a clear verb and resource, but it could incorporate more useful context without becoming verbose.
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?
With 1 required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the responsibility to clarify what 'overall statistics' means. It does not describe the response structure or the specific metrics returned, making it incomplete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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 provides a description for the 'login' parameter ('Group login name') achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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 verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'overall statistics for a group/team', which is specific about the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'overall' versus member/book/doc-specific stats, though it lacks details on what statistics are included.
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 yuque_group_member_stats, yuque_group_book_stats, or yuque_group_doc_stats. It gives no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply repeats the operation name and provides no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or failure modes. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded. It may be too sparse to convey necessary context, but for a simple tool it is appropriately brief. The schema fills in the details.
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, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It does not explain the response format, whether the update is partial or full, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 describes all five parameters with clear documentation, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or usage details, so the baseline score of 3 applies. Parameter meanings are adequately conveyed by 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 tool's function: updating a repo/book. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete/get. The mention of 'repo/book' is slightly ambiguous but consistent with Yuque terminology.
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 yuque_create_repo or yuque_delete_repo. No prerequisites or differences from other operations are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer 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 available, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only restates the basic action without mentioning authentication needs, rate limits, or the nature of the statistics returned. 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, concise sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource. There is no unnecessary content or repetition.
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 lacks an output schema, so the description should explain what 'statistics' includes and the shape of the response. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value. For a simple getter, this is a notable gap.
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 single parameter 'login' is fully described in the schema as 'Group login name'. The description adds no further detail, but given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get') and distinct resource ('book/repo statistics') scoped to a group/team. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like yuque_group_stats, which is more generic.
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 such as yuque_group_stats or yuque_group_doc_stats. The description does not include any exclusions, use cases, or 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?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation, but does not detail what 'member statistics' includes, whether any permissions are needed, or the format of the response. This is a significant gap for a stats tool.
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 key verb and object. Every word contributes to clarity, with no unnecessary details.
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?
While the tool is simple, the description lacks crucial context about what 'member statistics' entails and what the output will look like, especially since there is no output schema. It also offers no usage guidance, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently select and use this 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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'login' parameter with its description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (member statistics for a group/team). It differentiates from sibling tools like yuque_group_stats or yuque_group_book_stats by specifically mentioning 'member' statistics, making its purpose distinct.
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 does not mention exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the removal action but does not mention reversibility, permissions, or side effects, leaving an incomplete picture for a mutating operation.
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 filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource.
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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks crucial context about consequences, permissions, and relationship to sibling operations. The simple schema helps, but the tool remains under-specified.
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 already provides full descriptions for both required parameters (login and user_id), so the description adds no additional parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.
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 the specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource ('member from a group/team'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yuque_update_group_member and yuque_list_group_members.
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, nor are there any prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The description simply states the action without contextual cues.
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 should disclose behavioral effects, but it simply says 'update the TOC' without explaining whether it overwrites the entire structure, whether it validates data, or any side effects. This leaves the agent with little insight into the operation's 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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized, though shorter than ideal for completeness.
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?
For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the expected toc_data format beyond 'JSON string' (already in schema), nor does it clarify the update semantics (full replace vs partial).
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 both parameters (repo_id and toc_data), and the description adds no extra semantic detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 the action (Update) and the target resource (table of contents for a repo/book). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yuque_get_toc (read) and yuque_update_repo (repo settings).
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. It does not mention whether this replaces the entire TOC, requires specific permissions, or how it differs from yuque_update_repo.
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 says 'Get a specific version of a document' without stating that this is a read-only operation, what the response contains, or any error conditions. The word 'Get' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.
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 without any fluff or redundancy. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 with only one parameter, but the description is minimal and omits useful context such as how version_id is obtained (e.g., from list_doc_versions) or that it returns a historical snapshot. Given no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'version_id' is described as 'Version ID' in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage 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 the action ('Get') and resource ('specific version of a document'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like yuque_list_doc_versions (lists versions) and yuque_get_doc (gets current document), making the 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that version_id should come from yuque_list_doc_versions or contrast with yuque_get_doc, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination, ordering, authorization requirements, error behavior, or whether the response includes full member objects or only identifiers. This is a minimal behavioral hint at best.
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, clear sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function with no redundant or unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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 1-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential function and parameter adequately. However, since there is no output schema, the description should provide some indication of what the return value looks like (e.g., list of member usernames vs. full objects), which it does not. This is a clear gap, but the low complexity makes it minimally viable.
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 for the only parameter 'login' is 'Group login name' with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'group/team' aligns with the schema but adds no extra meaning, such as whether the login is a slug, ID, or display name, or how to obtain it. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not raise it.
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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List all members of a group/team'. It is distinct from sibling tools like yuque_list_groups (which lists groups) and yuque_list_repos (which lists repositories), so 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without mentioning scenarios where it is or isn't appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.
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 carry the behavioral burden. It only restates the basic function without disclosing return format, pagination, permissions, or other traits. No contradiction with annotations exists since there are none.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without 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?
The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters, but lacks an output schema and annotations. The description does not mention return values or edge cases, though it is minimally viable for a list operation.
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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema states, placing it at the baseline 3.
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 (List) and resource (repos/books) with scope (for a user or group). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like yuque_get_repo (single repo) and yuque_list_groups (groups).
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 does not mention exclusions or context such as needing a valid login or type, nor does it reference any sibling tool for alternative scenarios.
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 'Get' without mentioning return format, pagination, auth requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that has no structured annotations to clarify behavior.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose.
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 single-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but minimal. With no output schema, it does not explain what the TOC structure looks like or what fields the response contains. It is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks depth for an agent to anticipate the return format or error cases.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with a description including an example. The main description adds the synonym 'repo/book', which is a minor clarification but does not significantly augment the schema's information. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('table of contents (TOC) for a repo/book'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like yuque_get_repo, yuque_list_docs, and the complementary yuque_update_toc. The scope 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the resource, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. For example, it doesn't note that this returns the TOC structure while yuque_list_docs returns doc metadata. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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 full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Update a group member role', indicating a write operation, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or error conditions. The disclosure is minimal.
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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly communicates the core purpose without filler.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., membership), side effects (e.g., permission changes), or what the return value represents. An agent would need additional context to invoke the tool correctly.
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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (login, user_id, role), including the numeric role values. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline 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 the action ('Update'), the resource ('a group member'), and the specific attribute being changed ('role'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yuque_remove_group_member (removal) and yuque_list_group_members (listing).
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 implies its use when a member's role needs to be changed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the simple action verb.
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 full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or return behavior. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 create tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema or annotations, it does not inform the agent about return values or side effects. Adequate but with 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Create') and the target resource ('a new document in a repo/book'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like update_doc and delete_doc.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated. The description gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives, but as a create operation it is clear when it would be needed.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'full content' without explaining what that includes (e.g., response format, whether it returns metadata, permission requirements, or error behavior). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
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 get operation with complete parameter coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, without an output schema or annotations, it lacks details about the return value and what 'full content' actually contains. It could have been more informative about the response structure.
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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (doc_id, repo_id), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'specific 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific document'), with 'full content' distinguishing it from sibling tools like yuque_list_docs and yuque_get_doc_version. The tool name itself also clarifies the target operation.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. Usage is implied by the name and description: use when you need the full content of a single document. No exclusions or contextual hints 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 provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists groups/teams, without mentioning pagination, authentication requirements, whether archived or private groups are included, or what error behavior occurs. This is minimal disclosure for a read operation.
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 10 words that immediately conveys the primary action and scope. There is no redundancy, and the information is front-loaded.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it does not describe the return value shape (e.g., whether it returns IDs, names) or how it relates to sibling tools. For an agent to use the result fluently in a workflow, more detail would be beneficial.
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 already provides a description for the sole parameter 'user_id' ('User ID to list groups for'), and the tool description does not add any additional meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description simply reinforces the schema without adding semantic depth.
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 'List' and names the resource 'groups/teams' with a clear scope ('that the user belongs to'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like yuque_list_group_members, which lists members of a group, and yuque_list_repos, which lists repositories.
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 implies when to use the tool: to retrieve groups for a given user. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to any alternatives (e.g., for group members use yuque_list_group_members). The guidance is adequate but not explicit.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without mentioning return values, error conditions, permissions, or non-idempotency. A create operation modifies state, yet the description does not surface any of these consequences. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.
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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It immediately conveys the core action and scope, earning every word. This is a model of conciseness.
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 the schema handling parameters, the description is thin for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not mention the expected response, prerequisites, error handling, or the effect of optional fields like 'public' or 'repo_type'. The core action is clear, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent to anticipate the tool's full behavior and potential pitfalls.
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% description coverage for all seven parameters, so the schema already fully explains each field. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall purpose, which is acceptable under the baseline rule for high schema coverage. No further compensation is needed.
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 the verb 'Create' with the resource 'repo/book' and clarifies the target as 'for a user or group', making it specific and distinct from sibling update/delete/list operations. It clearly indicates the action and the primary scope, leaving no ambiguity about 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context of creating a new resource is naturally implied by the verb 'Create', which contrasts with sibling tools like update_repo and delete_repo. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the clear action and target provide adequate guidance for when to use this tool. It could be improved by noting prerequisites like the user or group already existing, but the core usage is clear.
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. It merely states the basic action and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, return value shape, or error behavior, leaving the agent under-informed about what to expect.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the essential information and contains no superfluous content.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description is minimal but adequate for basic usage. However, with no output schema and no mention of response contents or edge cases, it leaves some ambiguity about what the agent can expect after 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?
The input schema already has 100% coverage with a description and example. The tool description adds a small clarification on the namespace format (group_login/book_slug), but this largely duplicates the schema example, so it does not substantially exceed the baseline.
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 ('Get') and resource ('specific repo/book') with a precise identification method (ID or namespace), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_repos, get_doc, or get_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: retrieving a single repo/book when you have its ID or namespace. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and does not require additional guidance.
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?
The description adds the context that the tool returns information about the authenticated user, implying an authentication requirement. However, with no annotations, it carries the full burden and does not disclose response format, error behavior, or any side effects. It is more than a tautology 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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous 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?
For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what 'user information' includes, and the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves the agent without details on return values or error handling. It is concise but could be more descriptive.
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, and the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline score for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details since there are none.
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 'Get' and a clear resource 'current authenticated user information'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle groups, repos, docs, etc. It is immediately obvious 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that this is for fetching the authenticated user's info, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or reference to alternative tools.
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. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose details such as sorting, pagination, or whether deleted versions are included. Minimal transparency, 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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter list tool, the description is adequate but lacks context about return value or relationship to yuque_get_doc_version. It does not explain what 'versions' entails or how results are presented, so completeness is moderate.
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 doc_id described as 'Document ID'. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline provided by 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 'List all versions of a document' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yuque_get_doc_version, which retrieves a specific version, whereas this lists all.
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 implies use when needing all versions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like yuque_get_doc_version. There is no mention of exclusions or context, so usage is only implied.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search,' implying a read operation, but omits details like pagination, result format, or any limits. This is a significant gap for a search tool.
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 that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized 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?
With a simple 2-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return structure, pagination, and how the type parameter filters results. Since there is no output schema, the description should have covered these aspects to be more complete.
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% and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The type parameter's possible values (doc, repo, user) are already listed in the schema, so the description's mention of these types adds no incremental value.
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 tool's function: 'Search for documents, repos, or users in Yuque' with a specific verb and resource types. This differentiates it from sibling tools that fetch specific entities by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to search across content types by query), but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion criteria. However, the sibling tools are all direct fetches, so the search intent is clear without needing an explicit 'use when' statement.
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 for disclosing behavior. It states that the tool tests connectivity, implying a read-only health check, but does not mention response format, error behavior, or explicitly state lack of side effects. The description is adequate but lacks detail about what the agent should expect.
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 wasted words. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose in a minimal and direct way.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, simple connectivity test), the description is essentially complete. It could optionally mention that this is a safe, read-only operation, but for a health-check tool, the current description suffices for an agent to understand its use.
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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. The empty input schema is fully covered by the description's implication that no configuration is needed.
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 tool tests API connectivity with Yuque. It uses a specific verb 'test' and resource 'API connectivity', and it distinguishes from sibling tools that perform data operations like fetching or modifying resources.
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 does not mention any prerequisites, common scenarios, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied as a pre-flight check.
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 provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It accurately states a read-only listing action with a defined resource scope, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or return format details. This is acceptable for a simple list operation 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 that contains no filler words. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple tool with one fully documented parameter and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the operation and resource, though it could mention the return type (a list) more explicitly.
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 fully documents the only parameter (repo_id) with type and example. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('documents in a repo/book'), and the scope is unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like yuque_get_doc (single document) and yuque_list_doc_versions (versions of a document).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: to list all documents in a repository. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear given the tool name and sibling list.
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:

[![lzy-yuque-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lzy19926/lzy-yuque-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lzy19926/lzy-yuque-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lzy-yuque-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lzy19926/lzy-yuque-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lzy19926/lzy-yuque-mcp-server)

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/lzy19926/lzy-yuque-mcp-server'

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