Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

find_plans

Read-only

Pricing plans across the catalog. An API's pricing tiers. 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 / provider / name, or plan_count (largest first).
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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / sort / description
      Previous value: -"Order: name, or plan_count (largest first)."New value: +"Order: relevance / provider / name, or plan_count (largest first)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sort / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "plan_count"
-]New value: +[
+  "relevance",
+  "provider",
+  "name",
+  "plan_count"
+]
  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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'include=["content"] inlines bodies' behavior, which is useful context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention pagination, sorting defaults, or return format, but these are either in schema or not critical for a read-only search tool. No contradiction with 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filtering guidance, then an alternative. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition. Efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only search tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, key filtering options, and the primary alternative. It doesn't explain the return format, but that's a minor gap for a tool that likely returns a list of plans. Given the annotations and schema defaults, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 44% (<50%), so the description must compensate for undocumented params. It explains q, tags, providers, and include via the filtering sentence, adding meaning beyond the schema for those. However, page, limit, and match are not addressed in the description, leaving them under-explained. The context param is documented in the schema itself. It partially compensates but not fully.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (pricing plans), clarifies scope ('across the catalog', 'An API's pricing tiers'), and distinguishes itself from find_artifacts by naming it as an alternative. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings without opening schemas.

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 find_artifacts for cross-type search, giving a clear when-not-to-use condition. However, it doesn't elaborate on when to prefer this over other find_* tools like find_apis or find_providers, though the specific scope (pricing plans) implicitly guides selection. No prerequisites or exclusions beyond the one alternative are mentioned.

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