Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

apis-io

by io.apis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

recommend_stack

Read-only

Design an API stack — the best-rated catalog provider per capability, assembled into a stack. The Understanding preview is the top pick per capability; the full answer adds alternatives, per-pick artifact gaps, and an exportable APIs.json + Arazzo hint. Decompose the domain into capabilities first, then pass them here. 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
regionNoOptional region slug to prefer, e.g. europe.
contextNoOptional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong.
capabilitiesYesThe capabilities the stack needs, e.g. ["payments","email","identity","observability"].

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 / 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"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 meaningful behavior beyond that: the preview-vs-full-answer output difference, per-pick artifact gaps, an exportable APIs.json, and explicit per-call pricing ($0.05, tier B2). This cost/side-effect disclosure is valuable and goes beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then output detail, prerequisite, and pricing. It's dense with multiple clauses, but each carries information an agent needs (output shape, prerequisite, cost). Slightly packed but no truly wasted sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the tool returns (top pick per capability in preview; alternatives, gaps, and export in full answer) and discloses cost. Complete enough to call correctly, though it omits pagination/bounding details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents region, context, and capabilities. The description only adds the workflow hint that capabilities should be decomposed first; it doesn't add syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Design an API stack') and scopes it precisely: 'best-rated catalog provider per capability, assembled into a stack.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compare_providers or gap_analysis, which analyze rather than assemble.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('Decompose the domain into capabilities first, then pass them here') and clarifies tier availability (included in Understanding and Influence). It doesn't name a specific alternative sibling to prefer, so it stops short of a 5.

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