Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

find_areas

Read-only

Browse the API Evangelist areas taxonomy (authentication, webhooks, payments, …) — curated, scored provider indexes. Search by text; sort by provider count.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoFree text matched against name and description, e.g. "payments".
pageNoPage number, 1-based (default 1).
sortNoOrder: name, api_count, provider_count or composite, e.g. "provider_count".
limitNoResults per page, 1-100 (default 25).
contextNoOptional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields 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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Previous value: -"Page number, 1-based (default 1). Use with `limit` to walk a long list."New value: +"Page number, 1-based (default 1)."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Results per page, 1-100 (default 25)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Added value: +"Page number, 1-based (default 1). Use with `limit` to walk a long list."
    • addedInput schema / properties / q / description
      Added value: +"Free text matched against name and description, e.g. \"payments\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / sort / description
      Added value: +"Order: name, api_count, provider_count or composite, e.g. \"provider_count\"."
  3. 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"
+}
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and the closed/curated nature of the data are covered structurally. The description reinforces that the index is curated and scored, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result count, or the shape of a returned area record.

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?

Two compact clauses with the resource and its nature front-loaded, followed by the operating instructions. Slightly stylistic (em dash, trailing ellipsis) but no wasted sentences.

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 simple read-only, closed-world list tool with a fully documented five-parameter schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly. It could optionally sketch what an area result contains (e.g., provider counts), which is the only remaining gap.

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 every parameter is already documented in-schema (q, page, sort, limit, context). The description only restates text search and provider-count sorting, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 fits.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: browse the "areas taxonomy" with example members (authentication, webhooks, payments) and clarifies these are curated, scored provider indexes. The only shortfall is that it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_area or find_industries, so the agent must infer the find-vs-get distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Search by text; sort by provider count" tells the agent how to drive the tool, which implies the browse/filter use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no named alternative for retrieving a single area's detail (get_area) or its leaders (get_area_leaders).

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
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources