Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

correct_facts

INFLUENCE — propose corrections to what we say about you: name, description, url, industries, tags. Returns 202 and is applied by a person — an API that let an owner rewrite their own description unreviewed would be a marketing surface, not a catalog. Score and band are not owner-settable and are ignored. Priced B4 (human work) — included in Influence; otherwise $49.00 as a one-off with its own receipt, never from a prepaid balance. If this is your own company and our data about it is wrong, report_correction is free. See apis://prices.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoThe provider's correct website, e.g. "https://example.com".
nameNoThe provider name as it should read, e.g. "Acme Payments".
slugYesProvider slug — lowercase, hyphenated, as find_providers returns it, e.g. "stripe".
tagsNoTag slugs that should apply, e.g. ["payments","payouts"].
contactNoOptional email address we can reply to about this request, e.g. "dev@example.com".
contextNoOptional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong.
industriesNoIndustry slugs that should apply, e.g. ["financial-services"].
descriptionNoThe description as it should read — one or two sentences.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable."New value: +"Optional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong."
  2. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / contact / description
      Added value: +"Optional email address we can reply to about this request, e.g. \"dev@example.com\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Added value: +"The description as it should read — one or two sentences."
    • addedInput schema / properties / industries / description
      Added value: +"Industry slugs that should apply, e.g. [\"financial-services\"]."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"The provider name as it should read, e.g. \"Acme Payments\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / slug / description
      Added value: +"Provider slug — lowercase, hyphenated, as find_providers returns it, e.g. \"stripe\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags / description
      Added value: +"Tag slugs that should apply, e.g. [\"payments\",\"payouts\"]."
    • addedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Added value: +"The provider's correct website, e.g. \"https://example.com\"."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: returns 202, changes are applied by a human (async, not immediate), score/band are ignored, and the pricing model (included in Influence, else $49 one-off with its own receipt, never from prepaid balance).

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?

Front-loads purpose and constraints, and each clause carries operational weight (review, pricing, routing). The one editorial aside about 'a marketing surface, not a catalog' is justification rather than instruction and could be trimmed, but overall it is dense without padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a submission/mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations on outcome, the description covers the async 202 result, human review, non-settable fields, pricing, and the free alternative. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters with examples, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The description names 5 of the settable fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, and says nothing about slug (required), contact, or context.

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?

Opens with a specific verb (propose corrections) and resource (what we say about you), then enumerates the settable fields: name, description, url, industries, tags. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling report_correction and from owner-settable score/band, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use report_correction instead 'if this is your own company and our data about it is wrong' because it is free. States the condition, the alternative tool, and the reason, which is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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

All apis-io toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources