Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

find_finops

Read-only

FinOps / billing models across the catalog. How usage is metered and billed. Filter by q / tags / providers; include=["content"] inlines bodies. Use find_artifacts for cross-type search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoFree text over name + description.
pageNo
sortNoOrder: relevance (catalog order), provider, or name.
tagsNoTag 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.
limitNo
matchNoany
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
billing_modelNoBilling model, e.g. subscription, consumption, prepaid.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / sort
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Order: relevance (catalog order), provider, or name.",
+  "enum": [
+    "relevance",
+    "provider",
+    "name"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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."
  4. 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"
+}
  5. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavior that include=['content'] inlines bodies, which is useful operational context. No contradiction; it goes beyond annotations by explaining the metering/billing scope and the inline option.

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 with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by key filtering options and the sibling alternative. Every clause adds value; it is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a 10-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is relatively thin. It covers the domain and the include option but does not mention pagination (page/limit), match semantics, or what the return structure looks like. Given the readOnly annotation and simplicity of the tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 50% (5 of 10 params have descriptions). The description partially compensates by mentioning q, tags, providers, and include, but it does not clarify page, limit, match, or context beyond what the schema already says. For instance, it says 'Filter by q / tags / providers' which gives some meaning to providers but leaves pagination and match semantics unexplained.

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 the resource domain ('FinOps / billing models across the catalog') and the action is implied by the tool name 'find'. It also explains the purpose ('How usage is metered and billed') and notes a distinguishing alternative ('Use find_artifacts for cross-type search'), though it doesn't differentiate from other find_* siblings like find_apis or find_providers.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use find_artifacts for cross-type search, providing one exclusion. However, it does not specify when to prefer this tool over other domain-specific find_* tools (e.g., find_apis, find_providers), nor does it give context about when billing-model search 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 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