Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

export_stack

Read-only

UNDERSTANDING — Export a designed capability stack as an adoptable APIs.json document (with an Arazzo hint) the team can commit. Priced B3 (bulk export) — $0.002 per row, $0.50 minimum per call under pay-as-you-go; included in Understanding and Influence. See apis://prices.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoOptional region slug to prefer.
contextNoOptional: 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.
capabilitiesYesThe capabilities the stack needs, e.g. ["payments","email","identity"].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by disclosing the output type (APIs.json with an Arazzo hint), the pricing model (B3, $0.002/row, $0.50 minimum), and pointing to apis://prices for details. This goes beyond the annotation's safety profile and clarifies the operational context, though it does not mention failure modes or pagination.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and output, then adds pricing and a reference. Every clause earns its place — no fluff, no redundancy. It is well-structured for an agent to quickly parse the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (all schema-documented), a readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it produces, the pricing, and the domain context. It doesn't explain what 'adoptable' or 'Arazzo hint' means, but these are likely domain terms an agent would understand. The main omission is a note on any limits (e.g., max capabilities), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds little beyond what the schema states — it implies the capabilities parameter maps to the 'designed capability stack' but doesn't elaborate on region or context semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly enrich parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a precise resource ('designed capability stack'), and the output format ('adoptable APIs.json document with an Arazzo hint'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like export_dataset (different output) and find_apis_json (search vs. export) by naming the deliverable and the team-facing intent.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when you have a designed capability stack and want an exportable APIs.json document. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give 'when not to use' conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly. A minor gap is the lack of explicit contrast with export_dataset or find_apis_json.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources