Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

find_graphql

Read-only

GraphQL schemas across the catalog. GraphQL type systems. 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

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: the include=['content'] parameter 'inlines bodies' and the scoping to 'across the catalog'. It does not mention pagination, sort behavior, or match semantics, but these are less critical for a read-only search tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: scope, filter/inlining behavior, and alternative routing. No fluff or repetition of schema defaults. Front-loads the resource and catalog scope.

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 tool with 9 parameters und no output schema, the description is adequate for basic calls but leaves gaps: no explanation of providers semantics, match any/all, pagination, or what the returned objects contain. The explicit cross-type alternative helps, but an agent would need to infer or inspect the schema for several parameters.

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 low (44%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for include (inlines bodies) and lists providers as a filter, but does not explain providers' value semantics, match any/all, page/limit behavior, or output format. The schema already documents q, sort, and tags well, so the description fills some gaps but not all.

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 and scope ('GraphQL schemas across the catalog', 'GraphQL type systems') and distinguishes from 'find_artifacts for cross-type search'. It lacks an explicit verb like 'search', relying on the tool name and title, so it is clear but not a fully self-contained statement.

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?

Explicitly names an alternative for a specific condition: 'Use find_artifacts for cross-type search.' It also gives concrete filtering instructions (q / tags / providers, include content). It does not compare against other find_* siblings like find_openapis or find_apis, so the guidance is partial but useful.

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