apis-io

find_cohorts

Read-only

START HERE for market-level questions. Every scored population of providers in the catalog — tags, industries, regions, areas and VC portfolios — as one browsable index. Filter by kind, minimum population, or promotion tier (report/brief/data). Then call cohort_stats for the distribution, cohort_rankings for the leaderboard. Priced per result — $0.005 per request plus $0.0002 per record returned (less past 100), capped at $0.50 a request, under pay-as-you-go; included in Understanding and Influence. Estimate first at /api/v1/prices/estimate. See apis://prices.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Substring match on cohort name or slug.
`kind`	No	Restrict to one roster source.
`page`	No
`tier`	No	Promotion tier: report (100+, report-grade), brief (25+), data (everything else).
`limit`	No
`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.
`min_providers`	No	Only cohorts with at least this many providers. 25+ is brief-grade, 100+ report-grade.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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"
+}

AddedAug 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds significant behavioral detail: pricing per result, a cap, inclusion in specific plans, and the 'context' parameter is explicitly stated as never used in ranking and only read on wrong results. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a fuller picture of costs and side-effects.

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 a dense two-sentence block, but every clause carries weight: purpose, filters, next steps, pricing, and a pointer to estimation. It's slightly long but not padded; the front-loading of 'START HERE' is effective. A 4 reflects that it is well-structured though not perfectly laconic.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, filters, pricing, and follow-up calls. It doesn't explicitly state the return format (though 'browsable index' implies a list) or pagination semantics, but these are standard and not critical given the richness of the rest. It feels complete enough for correct invocation.

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 71%, so the schema describes most parameters. The description adds a summary of filter options ('by kind, minimum population, or promotion tier') but does not clarify standard pagination parameters (page, limit) or the context parameter, which remains under-explained. It adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'START HERE for market-level questions' and specifies exactly what the tool does: 'Every scored population of providers in the catalog — tags, industries, regions, areas and VC portfolios — as one browsable index.' It clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cohort_stats and cohort_rankings by positioning it as the entry point and listing the next calls to make.

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 tells the agent when to use it: 'START HERE for market-level questions' and then directs to 'call cohort_stats for the distribution, cohort_rankings for the leaderboard.' It also provides pricing context and a reference to an estimate endpoint, giving clear conditions for when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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?