Skip to main content
Glama

apis-io

by io.apis

recommend_stack

Design an API stack — the best-rated catalog provider per capability, assembled into a stack. PRO preview = the top pick per capability; PRO full = alternatives, per-pick artifact gaps, and an exportable APIs.json + Arazzo hint. Decompose the domain into capabilities first, then pass them here.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoOptional region slug to prefer, e.g. europe.
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.
capabilitiesYesThe capabilities the stack needs, e.g. ["payments","email","identity","observability"].

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the core behavior, the two output tiers (PRO preview vs PRO full), and what each tier includes: top picks, alternatives, artifact gaps, and exportable APIs.json + Arazzo hint. It does not explicitly state side-effect/read-only status, but nothing in the description implies mutation.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core action, the second explains output tiers and the prerequisite workflow. Every sentence earns its place, front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the agent can expect back; it does, distinguishing preview from full and listing included artifacts. It could be slightly richer about what triggers PRO full versus preview, but the core calling scenario is adequately covered.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds some framing (capabilities map to picks in the stack, decompose domain first), but it does not substantially extend the paramter semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Design'), a concrete resource ('API stack'), and the selection mechanism ('best-rated catalog provider per capability'). The PRO preview/full distinction makes the tool's behavior concrete and distinct from sibling search/export tools without needing to open the schema.

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?

The description gives a clear workflow directive: 'Decompose the domain into capabilities first, then pass them here.' This tells the agent when this tool fits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, 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
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