Skip to main content
Glama

get_provider_schema

Read-only

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoSubstring match on schema name or slug.
pageNoPage number, 1-based (default 1).
slugYesProvider slug — lowercase, hyphenated, as find_providers returns it, e.g. "stripe".
limitNoResults per page, 1-100 (default 25).
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. Changed2 schema fields 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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Previous value: -"Page number, 1-based (default 1). Use with `limit` to walk a long list."New value: +"Page number, 1-based (default 1)."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Results per page, 1-100 (default 25)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Added value: +"Page number, 1-based (default 1). Use with `limit` to walk a long list."
    • 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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a complete list and that the call is free, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior (page/limit exist in the schema) or ordering.

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?

A single sentence with the resource front-loaded, followed by a clarifying em-dash clause and a one-word benefit. No wasted words and nothing buried.

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, filterable list tool with no output schema, the description conveys scope and cost adequately and the schema carries parameter detail. It could still mention that results are paginated, which is the one operational gap.

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 slug, q, page, limit and context are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about any of them, so the baseline 3 for fully covered parameters applies.

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?

States a specific resource (every JSON Schema a provider publishes) and clarifies it is a bulk list rather than a single lookup. The phrase 'without walking their artifacts' implicitly distinguishes it from artifact-oriented siblings, but it never names a sibling like find_json_schemas or get_provider_artifacts, so a 5 is not earned.

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 only implied: use this to get a provider's schemas in one shot instead of traversing artifacts. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion conditions, and no guidance on choosing between this and find_json_schemas for the same provider. 'Free' hints there is no cost barrier but is not a usage rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources