Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pepe-MCP-Server

Pepe-MCP-Server

by AldereteSergio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

find_apis

Find and compare external APIs to solve your specific problem—describe context, constraints like region or budget, and measurable objectives to get tailored options.

Instructions

Descubrir/comparar APIs externas vía Pepe. query en CPQO: restricciones (región, SLA, presupuesto), preguntas de comparación, objetivos medibles.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_apis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesUn solo string CPQO (skill pepe-research-brief): CONTEXT · PROBLEM · QUESTIONS (bullets) · OBJECTIVES (1..n numerados). Opcional SCOPE/NON-GOALS.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation happens 'vía Pepe' and describes the query format, but it does not explain what the tool actually returns, whether it is read-only, what dependencies exist, or what failure modes might occur. This is a significant gap for a no-annotation tool.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then gives the key input requirement. No fluff, no repetition of schema details. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-param tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input format and intent. However, it omits what the agent can expect as a result (e.g., a list of APIs, a comparison table, a research brief) and doesn't clarify what 'vía Pepe' means in practice. It's workable but leaves behavioral gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying what kinds of constraints to include in the query (región, SLA, presupuesto) and emphasizes comparison questions and measurable objectives, which goes beyond the schema's format-only description. This helps an agent construct a more effective query.

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 uses specific verbs ('Descubrir/comparar') and a clear resource ('APIs externas'), which distinguishes it from generic search or documentation tools. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the niche of discovering/comparing external APIs is specific enough. 'Vía Pepe' adds a methodological nuance but isn't fully defined.

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?

The intended use case—finding or comparing external APIs—is implied clearly, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. Given siblings like 'search', 'deep_research', and 'get_documentation', an agent could benefit from clearer routing criteria. The CPQO format is described, but not when to pick this over similar tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools