Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

find_rules

Read-only

Spectral governance rulesets across the catalog. API design/linting rulesets. 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 rule_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 rule_count (largest first)."New value: +"Order: relevance / provider / name, or rule_count (largest first)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sort / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "rule_count"
-]New value: +[
+  "relevance",
+  "provider",
+  "name",
+  "rule_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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 behavioral context by noting that include=['content'] inlines bodies, which is a useful side-effect disclosure. It does not contradict annotations. It does not describe pagination or response format, but given the annotation coverage, the added value is sufficient.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, lists key filters, and ends with the crucial alternative. Every word adds value, and it is well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more guidance. It mentions filtering and include but omits pagination (page/limit), match behavior, and what the response contains. It also does not explain the context parameter's purpose (though that has a schema description). For a tool with this complexity, more detail would help an agent call it 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 description coverage is 44% (low), so the description must compensate. It does explain that q/tags/providers are filters and that include inlines bodies, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not cover page, limit, match, or sort (though sort has a schema description). It partially compensates but not fully for all undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding Spectral governance rulesets (API design/linting rulesets). It specifies the resource (rulesets) and the scope (catalog-wide), and distinguishes itself from find_artifacts by explicitly saying to use that for cross-type search. The verb 'find' is explicit and the description immediately conveys what it does.

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?

The description provides a clear when-not by directing users to find_artifacts for cross-type search, which is an explicit alternative. It also lists the main filtering mechanisms (q/tags/providers) and the include option. However, it does not cover all sibling tools (e.g., find_apis, find_providers) or elaborate on when to choose this over other find_* tools, but it does give one strong disambiguation.

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