Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_provider_capabilities

Read-only

What one provider publishes, counted by artifact type, with the agent dimensions it satisfies. Free — it is a fact about their own public surface. NOTE: this is artifact counts, NOT business capabilities — for what the vendor lets a business DO, call get_provider_business_capabilities. 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
slugYes
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. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful non-structural behavior: it clarifies that the result is counts rather than business logic, states the cost model, and notes that the data is about the provider's own public surface. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and the disambiguation note is placed early. The pricing sentence is a bit verbose with plan details, but the 'See apis://prices' link prevents redundancy from becoming a real problem.

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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, cost, and the most likely sibling alternative. It doesn't describe exact output fields, but the artifact-count framing is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Only 50% of parameters have schema descriptions, and the description does not directly document the slug or context parameters. However, 'one provider' makes it clear slug identifies a provider, and context has a thorough schema description. The description partially compensates but doesn't fully close the gap.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it returns what one provider publishes, counted by artifact type, plus the agent dimensions it satisfies. It also explicitly distinguishes this from business capabilities, making its purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear when-not-to-use instruction: 'this is artifact counts, NOT business capabilities' and names the exact alternative tool, get_provider_business_capabilities. It also gives pricing context that helps decide whether to call it.

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