Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

find_artifacts

Read-only

Find artifacts of ANY one type across the catalog — the cross-type entry point. Each type also has a dedicated find_ tool (find_mcp, find_rules, find_scopes, …) with sorts and filters unique to that type; prefer those when you know the type. Types: mcp, skills, rules, arazzo, plans, rate-limits, finops, collections, asyncapis, graphql, json-ld, channels, examples, json-schemas, json-structures, openapis, postman, apis-json. PRO: scopes, security. include=["content"] inlines bodies.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNo
pageNo
tagsNo
typeYes
limitNo
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.
includeNo
providersNo

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. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is cross-type, supports a defined list of artifact types, and include=['content'] inlines bodies. However, it does not clarify pagination, limit behavior, or the meaning of 'PRO: scopes, security', and the type string format is ambiguous.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose rings. The type list is long but functionally useful Newton. The only waste is the cryptic 'PRO: scopes, security' phrase, which adds little without further explanation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers primary purpose, type values, and the include behavior, and it has no output schema to document return values. But with 8 parameters and only 13% schema description coverage, the lack of clarification for q, tags, providers, pagination, and exact type format leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for type by listing valid artifact types and for include by explaining 'inlines bodies', but it leaves q, tags, page, limit, and providers unexplained. The listed type names also use hyphens (e.g., 'rate-limits', 'apis-json') which may not match the actual string values expected by the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('artifacts'), and scope ('across the catalog'), plus explicitly labels this as the 'cross-type entry point'. It also distinguishes itself from the dedicated find_<type> siblings, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs.

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 usage: 'prefer those when you know the type' in reference to the dedicated find_<type> tools papers. It also names the sibling alternative pattern and the condition for choosing it, which is clear routing guidance.

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