Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_provider_facets

Read-only

UNDERSTANDING — one provider's score broken into its facets (discoverability, contract quality, governance, operational transparency, developer ergonomics, commercial clarity) plus any regulatory regime that applies. The composite is one number; these are the parts a team can actually act on. Priced B1 (single-entity synthesis) — $0.01 per call under pay-as-you-go; included in Understanding and Influence. See apis://prices.

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: it discloses the pricing tier (B1, $0.01/call), plan inclusion, and a pointer to apis://prices — information an agent can use for cost-aware planning.

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 and mostly efficient: the facet list is placed early where it matters, and the pricing sentence carries real decision value. The 'UNDERSTANDING —' prefix and the redundant 'See apis://prices' add minor noise but don't derail it.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the agent gets back (six named facets plus applicable regulatory regime) and its cost model. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though it could clarify the relationship to the composite rating tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both slug and context (including the unusual note that context is never used to rank). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('one provider's score broken into its facets') and enumerates the exact facet set, so an agent knows precisely what it returns. It also distinguishes itself from composite-score siblings by stating 'The composite is one number; these are the parts a team can actually act on.'

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrasing about 'parts a team can actually act on' suggests using this when the single composite isn't actionable, but no sibling (e.g. get_provider_rating) is named as an alternative, nor is any explicit when-not condition given.

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