Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis

get_provider_schema

Every JSON Schema a provider publishes — the data shapes their API works in, in one list, without walking their artifacts. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoSubstring match on schema name or slug.
pageNo
slugYes
limitNo
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.

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Free' (cost) and 'in one list' (aggregated result), but does not describe response format, pagination, or any side effects. It also does not clarify what 'without walking their artifacts' implies about speed or limitations, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 description is a single sentence, concise and without fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, but the phrasing is slightly cryptic and could be clearer. It is efficient but not maximally transparent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned list contains (schema names, full schemas, metadata), how pagination works, or when to prefer this over similar find_json_schemas or get_provider_artifacts tools. The 'Free' note is helpful but does not compensate for missing operational details.

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?

The schema has descriptions for only two of five parameters (q and context), and the tool description mentions no parameters at all. It does not explain the required 'slug' or the purpose of 'page' and 'limit'. With only 40% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 states that the tool retrieves all JSON Schemas a provider publishes, presented as a list without needing to walk artifacts. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_provider_artifacts, though the phrasing 'the data shapes their API works in' is a bit convoluted. It is not a tautology and conveys the core resource and action.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It hints at an alternative by saying 'without walking their artifacts,' but does not name it or specify conditions for choosing this tool. No sibling tools or scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly separated by artifact type or resource (find_mcp vs find_openapi vs get_provider vs get_api), but the sheer volume creates some genuinely confusable clusters: apis_io_search vs find_apis vs find_artifacts, and insights_adoption vs insights_dimensions vs find_company_insights. Several readiness-related tools (what_can_i_fix, simulate_fixes, readiness_gates) also share a conceptual boundary, though their descriptions do help.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant patterns (find_*, get_*, cohort_*, compare_*) are consistent and predictable, but the set mixes in irregular names like apis_io_search, tag_group_tags, what_can_i_fix, whats_changed, and resolve. These deviations are readable but break the otherwise regular verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

106 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped server and will impose a heavy selection burden on agents. The server covers a genuinely broad domain (catalog search, ratings, cohorts, agent readiness, lists, exports, feedback), so the count is defensible in scope, but it is still too many to navigate efficiently.

Completeness5/5

The surface is remarkably complete: search and browse, single-entity detail, comparisons, cohort analytics, agent-readiness assessment, saved searches, list management, feedback/correction flows, and full dataset exports are all covered. There are no obvious dead ends, and even minor operations like re-running saved searches or simulating fixes are present.

Resources