Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_provider_artifacts

Read-only

Every artifact a provider publishes — provider-level (MCP, security, scopes, rules, agentic-access) and per-API (OpenAPI, Arazzo, overlays, reference docs) — grouped by type with counts. by_type_counts is the full summary; pass type (e.g. OpenAPI, MCP) to scope the artifacts list to one type, since an unfiltered provider can be 250+ entries.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYes
typeNoReturn only artifacts of this type (synonym-aware: MCP matches MCPServer).
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.

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / type
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return only artifacts of this type (synonym-aware: MCP matches MCPServer).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are grouped by type with counts, by_type_counts is the full summary, and unfiltered responses can be large. 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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences: the first defines the resource and grouping, the second gives actionable filtering advice and a performance caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 artifact listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the key decision points: grouping, summary field, type filtering, and response size. It does not specify exact artifact fields or pagination, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 descriptions cover type and context but not slug. The description adds value by explaining how type scopes the artifacts list and by warning about the large unfiltered result set. It does not elaborate on slug, but the required parameter is reasonably inferable as the provider identifier.

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 states that the tool returns every artifact a provider publishes, enumerates provider-level and per-API types, and notes grouping by type with counts. It is specific and unambiguous about the resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_api_artifacts or find_artifacts.

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 gives practical usage guidance: by_type_counts is the summary, and passing type scopes the list to one type, with a warning that an unfiltered provider can return 250+ entries. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not 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