Skip to main content
Glama
sujianqingfeng

Apifox MCP

by sujianqingfeng
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves general API information, while the other extracts specific IDs from a URL. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' prefix and snake_case naming, making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin and under-scoped for an Apifox integration, lacking essential operations like creating, updating, or listing APIs, which limits its utility.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for API management; it only provides retrieval and ID extraction, missing core CRUD operations (e.g., create_api, update_api, list_apis) and other typical API lifecycle functions.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    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
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under ISC 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action of getting API info, without details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This lack of information is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

    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, straightforward sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative to improve clarity without sacrificing 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'info' includes in the response, how errors are handled, or any behavioral nuances, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

    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, clearly documenting both required parameters (apiId and projectId) with their purposes. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter relationships or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema handles the heavy lifting.

    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 the tool 'Get the info of Apifox API,' which clearly indicates it retrieves information about an API. However, it lacks specificity about what 'info' entails (e.g., metadata, details, status) and does not distinguish it from the sibling tool 'get_apifox_project_id_and_api_id_from_url,' which might serve a related but different purpose. This vagueness prevents a higher score.

    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 the sibling tool. It does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool extracts IDs from a URL but doesn't describe how it handles invalid inputs, errors, or the format of the extracted data. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about its operation and potential limitations.

    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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's definition.

    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 complexity of extracting IDs from text, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., structured data, error messages) or how it handles edge cases. For a tool with one parameter but no behavioral context, this falls short of providing enough information for reliable 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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'text' parameter documented as 'The text to extract the project id and api id from.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying that the text should be a URL. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

    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's purpose: 'Get the project ID and API ID of Apifox from the URL.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resources ('project ID and API ID'), and mentions the source ('from the URL'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_apifox_api_info', which might have overlapping or related functionality.

    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 doesn't mention the sibling tool 'get_apifox_api_info' or any other context for usage, such as prerequisites or scenarios where this extraction is needed. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

    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

mcp-apifox MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-apifox MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/sujianqingfeng/mcp-apifox'

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