Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gap_analysis

Read-only

UNDERSTANDING — For each provider: high-value artifacts it lacks (MCP, Arazzo, Rules, Skills…), what its peers commonly publish but it lacks, and its score vs the peer median — plus stack-level gaps across the set. Priced B2 (cross-catalog synthesis) — $0.05 per call under pay-as-you-go; included in Understanding and Influence. See apis://prices.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
min_shareNoPeer-share threshold for a gap (0–1, default 0.25).
providersYesProvider slugs (1+). Multiple = treat as a stack.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about pricing tier and plan inclusion, but it does not disclose output behavior, potential size of results, or any rate-limit/error considerations beyond what the schema already provides for the context parameter.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short, front-loaded with the core analysis purpose, and uses a compact list of output dimensions. The pricing sentence is slightly tangential to invocation but still informative; overall there is little waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the analysis returns: artifact gaps, peer-share gaps, score vs peer median, and stack-level gaps. Inputs are fully documented in the schema. A more concrete return-shape outline would strengthen it, but it is adequate for a tool with this complexity.

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 100%, so parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds the notion of artifact types and peer/stack comparison but does not materially deepen the meaning of providers, min_share, or context beyond the schema definitions.

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 clearly identifies the resource (providers) and the operation (analyzing gaps in artifacts, peer comparisons, and median scores), and it adds stack-level scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like industry_gap_analysis or company_gaps, but the provider/stack focus makes the purpose reasonably unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for provider-level or stack-level gap analysis, and the schema requires at least one provider slug. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus sibling gap tools, no exclusions, and no alternative routing 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