Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_provider_evidence

Read-only

How a provider's score was established, part by part: first-party (they published it), verified (we fetched and confirmed it), or derived (we inferred it). Free — the basis for a claim should never sit behind the claim. Call this before disputing or quoting a score.

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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond this: the operation is free, returns provenance categories, and is positioned as a prerequisite before dispute or quote actions. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but those are less critical for a read-only lookup.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no fluff. The first sentence defines the output semantics; the second provides the usage trigger and rationale. The 'Free' clause earns its place by adding behavioral context rather than padding.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description conveys what the agent will receive (evidence categories) and when to call it. It omits exact return shape and error behavior, but the described semantics are sufficient for invocation.

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?

The context parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema, but slug has no schema description and the tool description only implies its role via 'provider's score.' With 50% schema description coverage and no parameter-level detail in the description, this is adequate but not additive.

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 explains what the tool does: it returns how a provider's score was established, broken into first-party, verified, and derived evidence. It is specific about the resource and purpose, and the claim/quote context helps separate it from simple score lookups, though it lacks an explicit action verb and named sibling distinction.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Call this before disputing or quoting a score.' That is clear, practical guidance. However, it does not name alternative tools or explain when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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