Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesProvider slug — lowercase, hyphenated, as find_providers returns it, e.g. "stripe".
contextNoOptional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong.

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / slug / description
      Added value: +"Provider slug — lowercase, hyphenated, as find_providers returns it, e.g. \"stripe\"."
  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. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond them: it is free, and it enumerates the evidence taxonomy it returns. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only evidence lookup that is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core answer (the three evidence types), followed by cost and the usage trigger. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the aphorism about claims sitting 'behind the claim' is slightly editorial.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned evidence categories and the free/cost angle. Combined with a single well-documented required parameter, an agent has enough to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both 'slug' (format and example) and the optional 'context' (never used to rank) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing further about parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it retrieves how a provider's score was established, and it defines the three evidence categories (first-party, verified, derived) so the agent knows exactly what comes back. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_provider_rating or get_provider.

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?

Explicit trigger given: 'Call this before disputing or quoting a score.' That tells the agent when to reach for it, though it doesn't name the obvious alternatives (dispute_finding, correct_facts) when a dispute has actually begun.

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