MCP server for accessing and discovering public APIs with search, filtering, recommendations, and code generation capabilities
The server provides 15 tools with explicit schemas and descriptions in src/services/tool-service.ts. Naming follows verb-first convention (search_, filter_, get_, etc.), but descriptions are in Chinese and vary in quality. Schemas are present and mostly complete with type definitions and required field declarations. However, several critical gaps reduce overall quality: (1) Descriptions are minimal (10-50 chars), well below the 50-200 char LLM-optimized baseline. (2) Many parameter descriptions lack actionable guidance on constraints and valid ranges. (3) Output schemas are not documented, tools return ToolResponse objects but the structure is not specified. (4) No error recovery guidance is present. (5) The sync_repository_data tool is marked WRITE but accepts minimal parameters, and check_new_apis returns new API records but lacks pagination support despite potentially large result sets. The tools form a coherent API discovery domain but fall short of production-grade quality.
分析不同认证方式的API分布
检查最近添加的新API
根据认证要求筛选API
筛选支持跨域访问的API
筛选支持HTTPS的API
寻找替代API选项
为选定的API生成集成代码示例
获取特定API的详细信息
Descriptions are extremely terse (10-50 chars) and lack actionable context. Missing guidance on when to use each tool, what it returns, and how it differs from similar tools.
Output schemas are entirely undocumented. Tools return ToolResponse objects but the actual field structure, types, and pagination info are not specified. LLMs cannot plan downstream tool calls or extract data without knowing what fields are returned.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 49 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | D | 51 | - | v1 |
获取API数量统计信息
获取所有可用的API分类列表
随机推荐一个API
根据项目需求推荐合适的API
根据分类搜索API
通过关键词搜索API
从GitHub仓库同步最新的API列表
Parameter descriptions lack constraint specifications. For example, 'limit' parameters have no stated min/max bounds. 'projectType' and 'requirements' in recommend_apis_for_project have no format guidance. 'language' enum in generate_api_integration_code is not validated in the description.
No error handling or recovery guidance. Tool implementations in ToolService.handleToolCall() throw McpError but no documentation explains what errors users/LLMs might encounter, which are retryable, or what corrective action to take. E.g., sync_repository_data could fail due to GitHub rate limits, no guidance provided.
Pagination is absent from tools that return potentially large result sets. check_new_apis returns 'recent added APIs' but accepts only a 'days' parameter with no limit/offset/cursor support. If 100+ new APIs exist, the response could exhaust context windows.
Tool composition has overlapping/unclear distinctions. 'recommend_apis_for_project' and 'find_alternative_apis' both suggest APIs but with different selection criteria. Documentation does not clarify when to use each. 'search_apis_by_keyword' and 'recommend_apis_for_project' could both be used to discover APIs, the criteria for tool selection are unclear to LLMs.
sync_repository_data is marked WRITE but accepts minimal parameters and lacks confirmation/dry-run support. No documentation explains what 'sync' means, how long it takes, what happens to existing data, or idempotency guarantees.
Descriptions are in Chinese, not English. The MCP protocol and most LLM agents operate in English. Non-English descriptions force LLMs to translate, adding latency and error risk. Tool names are English but descriptions in Chinese creates a jarring mismatch.