Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

insights_adoption

Read-only

Services, tools, or standards ranked by how many companies adopt them across the profiled set. Understanding plan. Priced B2 (cross-catalog synthesis) — $0.05 per call under pay-as-you-go; included in Understanding and Influence. See apis://prices.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, 1-based (default 1).
typeNoWhat to rank by adoption: "service" (default), "tool" or "standard".service
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 / type / description
      Added value: +"What to rank by adoption: \"service\" (default), \"tool\" or \"standard\"."
  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

B3.2/5.0
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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the plan tier and per-call price, plus where to find the pricing reference. It still does not disclose return shape, pagination, or ranking ties, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concise tier and pricing sentences. It is tight overall, though the pricing clauses ('Priced B2 ... included in Understanding and Influence ... See apis://prices') consume several phrases for a single billing fact.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and four optional parameters, the description covers the purpose and the cost model but says nothing about the structure of the ranked results, what fields accompany each entry, or how ties are handled. Adequate for selection but incomplete for confident invocation of a ranked-listing 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 page, limit, type, and context are all documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of 'services, tools, or standards' only restates the type enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 states a concrete output: services, tools, or standards ranked by company adoption count across the profiled set. This is a specific resource and ranking, not a tautology of the name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like insights_dimensions or insights_industries.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the other insights_* tools or alternative ranking tools like cohort_rankings. The only context given is billing/plan information, which tells the agent about cost but not about task fit.

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