apis-io

find_apis_json

Read-only

APIs.json indexes across the catalog. The APIs.json discovery documents themselves. Filter by q / tags / providers; include=["content"] inlines bodies. Use find_artifacts for cross-type search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No	Free text over name + description.
`page`	No
`sort`	No	Order: relevance (catalog order), provider, or name.
`tags`	No	Tag slugs. On PROVIDERS this is identity — what the company says it does, from its own apis.yml. A resource or operation term (webhook, saml, order, oai-pmh) will correctly match no provider; use find_apis?tags= for those, or find_providers?api_tags= to reach companies whose APIs merely touch it.
`limit`	No
`match`	No		any
`context`	No	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.
`include`	No
`providers`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / tags / description

Previous value: -"Tag slugs. On PROVIDERS this is identity — what the company says it does, from its own apis.yml. A resource or operation term (webhook, saml, order, oai-pmh) will correctly match no provider; use find_apis?tags= for those, or api_tags below."New value: +"Tag slugs. On PROVIDERS this is identity — what the company says it does, from its own apis.yml. A resource or operation term (webhook, saml, order, oai-pmh) will correctly match no provider; use find_apis?tags= for those, or find_providers?api_tags= to reach companies whose APIs merely touch it."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / sort

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Order: relevance (catalog order), provider, or name.",
+  "enum": [
+    "relevance",
+    "provider",
+    "name"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / tags / description

Previous value: -"Tag slugs."New value: +"Tag slugs. On PROVIDERS this is identity — what the company says it does, from its own apis.yml. A resource or operation term (webhook, saml, order, oai-pmh) will correctly match no provider; use find_apis?tags= for those, or api_tags below."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 27, 2026

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"
+}

AddedJul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that include=['content'] inlines bodies, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior, sorting defaults, or output format. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, the description adds some value but not deep behavioral context.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, then filter options, then the sibling alternative. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean.

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?

For a search tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description gives essential info: what it searches, filters, include behavior, and a sibling pointer. It doesn't explain pagination or sorting defaults, but those are in the schema. The description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly, though it could mention limit/page defaults. A 4 is reasonable.

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 44%, so the description must compensate. It mentions q, tags, providers, and include, adding meaning for those. However, it omits page, sort, limit, match, and context (context has a schema description, but others don't). It partially compensates but doesn't fully cover the undocumented parameters. A 3 is appropriate given partial coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it indexes APIs.json discovery documents across the catalog, using the verb 'find' implicitly through the name. It clearly names the resource type (APIs.json) and mentions filtering by q/tags/providers and include parameter, distinguishing it from generic artifact search. It's specific enough, though 'The APIs.json discovery documents themselves' is slightly awkward but understandable.

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 directs the agent to 'Use find_artifacts for cross-type search', naming the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. It also lists the filterable fields (q/tags/providers) and the include option, giving clear guidance on what this tool is for versus its sibling.

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

All apis-io tools Inspect

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

Need Help?