apis-io

find_channels

Read-only

AsyncAPI event channels across the catalog. Individual event channels (topics/streams). 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
`version`	No	AsyncAPI spec version the channel is defined in, e.g. 2.6.0 or 3.0.0.
`protocol`	No	Transport the channel runs over: ws, http, sse, kafka, mqtt, amqp, nats, grpc… Empty where the document never says, which is most of them.
`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"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / protocol / description

Previous value: -"AsyncAPI version the channel is defined in."New value: +"Transport the channel runs over: ws, http, sse, kafka, mqtt, amqp, nats, grpc… Empty where the document never says, which is most of them."

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."

addedInput schema / properties / version

Added value: +{
+  "description": "AsyncAPI spec version the channel is defined in, e.g. 2.6.0 or 3.0.0.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

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

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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior about the include=['content'] inlining bodies, which is useful. But it doesn't describe return format, pagination, or any side effects—though for a read-only tool, this is acceptable. The description doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the resource and core filters, the second points to the alternative. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It covers the main intent and the include behavior, and the schema documents the rest. However, it doesn't describe the return structure or any nuance about how filters interact (e.g., match=any/all), which could be relevant. It's complete enough for a basic call but not for advanced usage.

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 coverage is 55%, and the description mentions q, tags, providers, and include, but only summarizes them without adding deeper meaning beyond what the schema already provides for q and tags. The include behavior is clarified, which is a plus. However, parameters like page, sort, match, context, version, and protocol are not touched in the description, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('find') and resource ('AsyncAPI event channels'), and clarifies it's for individual topics/streams. It also differentiates from find_artifacts by naming the alternative for cross-type search, so an agent can immediately tell which tool fits.

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?

It explicitly names find_artifacts as the alternative for cross-type search, which is a clear when-not-to-use signal. It also mentions the key filters (q/tags/providers) and the include option, giving enough context for typical usage. However, it doesn't enumerate other find_* siblings or state exclusions beyond find_artifacts.

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?