Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

find_security

Read-only

Security artifacts across the catalog. Authentication, domain security, VDP, trust center. Understanding plan. Filter by q / tags / providers; include=["content"] inlines bodies. Use find_artifacts for cross-type search. Priced B1 (single-entity synthesis) — $0.01 per call under pay-as-you-go; included in Understanding and Influence. See apis://prices.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoFree text over name + description.
pageNo
sortNoOrder: relevance / provider / name, or scheme_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 scheme_count (largest first)."New value: +"Order: relevance / provider / name, or scheme_count (largest first)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sort / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "scheme_count"
-]New value: +[
+  "relevance",
+  "provider",
+  "name",
+  "scheme_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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 valuable behavioral context: pricing (B1, $0.01 per call, included in certain plans), the effect of include=['content'] inlining bodies, and a reference to apis://prices. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the core scope, but the standalone fragment 'Understanding plan.' is confusing and disrupts flow. The pricing information is appended awkwardly at the end. While concise, the structure could be cleaner.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives essential context (scope, categories, filtering, alternative, pricing) but does not explain several parameters, the concept of 'artifacts', or the response format. The vague 'Understanding plan' reference adds noise. It is adequate for initial use 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 only 44%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to q, tags, providers, and include, but does not clarify page, limit, sort, match, or context beyond existing schema descriptions. It covers the most important parameters but leaves gaps.

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 tool returns security artifacts across the catalog and lists relevant categories (authentication, domain security, VDP, trust center). It explicitly directs cross-type searches to find_artifacts, distinguishing it from a sibling. The verb 'find' is implied by the tool name, making it reasonably clear, though not as explicit as 'List ALL calls'.

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-to-use context (security artifacts) and explicitly names find_artifacts as the alternative for cross-type search. It also mentions filtering via q, tags, providers, and the include parameter for inlining bodies. It does not cover all possible decision points but gives solid guidance.

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