Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_api_artifacts

Read-only

One API's artifacts grouped by type (by_type_counts is the full summary); pass type to scope the list to one type (synonym-aware: MCP matches MCPServer), include=["content"] to inline the bodies.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aidYesAPI id in the form provider:api-slug, as find_apis returns it, e.g. "stripe:stripe-api".
typeNoReturn only artifacts of this type.
contextNoOptional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong.
includeNoPass ["content"] to inline each artifact's body instead of just its URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"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."New value: +"Optional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / aid / description
      Added value: +"API id in the form provider:api-slug, as find_apis returns it, e.g. \"stripe:stripe-api\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / include / description
      Added value: +"Pass [\"content\"] to inline each artifact's body instead of just its URL."
  3. 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"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / type
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return only artifacts of this type.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  5. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds real behavioral context: synonym-aware type matching (MCP matches MCPServer) and the relationship between the returned list and the by_type_counts summary. It omits pagination or result-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose before the two parenthetical refinements. Slightly overloaded with nested parentheses, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 does partial duty on returns by describing the grouped-by-type shape, the counts summary, and URL-vs-body content. It leaves pagination and per-artifact fields unexplained, which is the main residual gap for a 4-parameter read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema: `type` is synonym-aware (MCP matches MCPServer) and the by_type_counts reference clarifies the relationship between scoped and unscoped calls. The `include` behavior largely restates the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource with scope: 'One API's artifacts grouped by type,' which tells an agent this is API-scoped rather than provider-scoped. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not (get_provider_artifacts or find_artifacts), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives call-shaping guidance (pass `type` to scope, include=["content"] to inline bodies) but never says when to choose this over get_provider_artifacts or find_artifacts, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is implied by the API-scoped framing rather than stated.

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
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources