Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-apisix

mcp-apisix

by zhouweico
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

apisix_list_plugins

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query APISIX plugin names sorted by priority. Use when needing a list of available plugins without their schemas.

Instructions

查询插件名列表（按 priority 降序，不含 schema）。

需要字段定义时另调 apisix_get_plugin_schema。

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": "apisix_list_plugins"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subsystemNo子系统：http（默认）或 stream，其他值服务端返回 400http

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: the list is sorted by priority descending and does not include schema. This provides useful context without contradicting 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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It directly states the core function and the key exception (no schema) in the first sentence, and the usage pointer in the second.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple listing tool: it specifies the output (plugin names), ordering, and what is excluded, and references the schema tool. It doesn't mention response format or pagination, but the tool is simple enough and annotations are rich. A slight gap is that it doesn't mention the optional subsystem filter, but the schema covers that.

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 optional parameter, so the schema fully documents the subsystem parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive. 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 tool queries a list of plugin names, sorted by priority descending and excluding schema. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool apisix_get_plugin_schema by noting that schema should be retrieved separately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says '需要字段定义时另调 apisix_get_plugin_schema', providing a direct alternative when schema definitions are needed. This clearly guides when to use this tool versus the schema tool.

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