Retrieve all configured YAPI projects to manage API documentation and data across multiple interfaces.
列出所有已配置的 YAPI 项目
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_projects"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 description only states what the tool does ('列出所有已配置的 YAPI 项目') but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are formatted, if there's pagination, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part of the sentence contributing essential information. There's zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple list operation with 0 parameters), the description is complete enough for its basic purpose. However, there's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values or behavioral aspects. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what the output looks like or any constraints, but it's minimally adequate for a straightforward list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are no parameters. According to the rules, 0 parameters gives a baseline score of 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('列出所有' - list all) and the resource ('已配置的 YAPI 项目' - configured YAPI projects). It uses a specific verb and identifies the target resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'yapi_interface_list' or 'yapi_interface_list_menu', which might also list things but different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'yapi_interface_list' (which likely lists interfaces rather than projects). There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.