YAPI MCP Server

yapi_interface_save

Save API interfaces to YAPI documentation by creating new entries or updating existing ones with details like endpoints, methods, parameters, and descriptions.

Instructions

保存接口（新增或更新）

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "catid": "<catid>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "yapi_interface_save"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	YAPI 接口页面 URL（可选），如 https://yapi.xxx.com/project/1009/interface/api/108375，会自动解析出项目 ID、接口 ID 等参数
`project`	No	项目 ID（可选，不传则使用默认项目）
`catid`	Yes	接口分类 ID
`id`	No	接口 ID（更新时必填）
`title`	Yes	接口名称
`path`	Yes	接口路径
`method`	Yes	请求方法
`desc`	No	接口描述
`status`	No	接口状态
`req_params`	No	路径参数
`req_query`	No	查询参数
`req_headers`	No	请求头
`req_body_type`	No	请求体类型
`req_body_form`	No	表单请求体
`req_body_other`	No	其他请求体
`res_body_type`	No	返回数据类型
`res_body`	No	返回数据

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Feb 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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 for behavioral disclosure. While '保存接口（新增或更新）' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, error conditions, or response format. For a complex mutation tool with 17 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - just four Chinese characters plus parentheses. It's front-loaded with the core action. While perhaps too brief for such a complex tool, every word earns its place by conveying the dual create/update capability efficiently.

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 complex mutation tool with 17 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. While the schema documents parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for safe and effective use of this significant 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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the basic 'save interface' concept. It doesn't explain how parameters like 'url' interact with others, or clarify the conditional logic for 'id' (required for updates). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '保存接口（新增或更新）' translates to 'Save interface (add or update)', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. It indicates the tool can either create new interfaces or update existing ones. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'yapi_interface_add' (which presumably only adds) or 'yapi_interface_up' (which presumably only updates), leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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. With sibling tools like 'yapi_interface_add' and 'yapi_interface_up' available, there's no indication whether this tool should be preferred for certain scenarios, whether it handles both operations conditionally, or what prerequisites might exist. The agent receives no usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server