Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
YApi MCP Server

YApi MCP Server

by meilSop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

获取 YApi 接口列表

yapi_list_interfaces

Retrieve the complete list of API interfaces for a YApi project. Optionally specify projectId, or default to the YAPI_PROJECT_ID environment variable.

Instructions

获取指定 YApi 项目的完整接口列表。如果不传 projectId，则优先使用环境变量 YAPI_PROJECT_ID。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "yapi_list_interfaces"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the environment variable fallback, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how results are returned. This leaves notable gaps for a list 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds a useful parameter fallback note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose and parameter behavior, which is adequate for basic use. However, it omits details such as authentication requirements, error behavior, and return format, which would be needed for full completion.

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 schema only provides the type and minimum for projectId, with no description. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that projectId is optional and falls back to YAPI_PROJECT_ID when omitted, including the precedence behavior. This goes beyond the schema.

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 retrieves the complete interface list for a specified YApi project, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from detail and search siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar-sounding 'get_api_list'.

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 context: you use this to get all interfaces of a YApi project, with projectId optionally coming from an environment variable. However, it does not name alternative tools like search_api or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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