Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_provider_rating

Read-only

One provider's full rating breakdown (composite, band, trend, six facets). 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. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds pricing details (B1 tier, $0.01 per call, included in plans) which is a useful cost behavior. It does not describe side effects (none expected) or rate limits, but for a read-only operation this is adequate. 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?

The description is concise: two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and includes practical pricing information. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description covers the main output (rating breakdown) and provides cost context. It lacks a detailed list of the six facets, but with no output schema, it still gives enough for an agent to call correctly. Minor gap: could mention that slug is the provider identifier, but it's implied by the tool name.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%: slug has no description, context has a description. The tool description does not mention parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented slug. While slug is self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving the missing parameter description unaddressed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving one provider's full rating breakdown, listing the components (composite, band, trend, six facets). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_provider_facets (which likely returns only facets) and get_rating_history (history-specific). The verb 'get' and resource 'provider rating' are explicit.

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?

The description implies this tool is for a single provider's full breakdown, but it doesn't explicitly compare it to alternatives such as get_provider_facets or get_rating_history. There is no 'use this when X, otherwise use Y' guidance. The scope is clear enough for an agent to infer, but it's not explicit.

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