Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Apitaco MCP Server

Apitaco MCP Server

Official
by myapitaco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

apitaco_list_models

Retrieve Apitaco models and their per-million-token prices to compare options and estimate request costs.

Instructions

List models available on Apitaco with their per-million-token pricing.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "apitaco_list_models"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does reveal the nature of the returned data (model list plus per-million-token pricing), which implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about pagination, scope, authentication, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, restated name, or redundant phrasing. Every clause (models, availability, pricing) carries information.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must set expectations for what comes back, and it does name the two key payload elements (models and per-million-token pricing). It could note whether results are paginated or filtered server-side, but for a simple parameterless listing it is close to sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description does not need to explain any argument syntax.

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 clear verb ("List") and resource ("models available on Apitaco") and adds a payload detail (per-million-token pricing). It is distinguishable from the sibling tools apitaco_get_balance and apitaco_get_usage, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. A caller must infer from the name and siblings that this is the catalog/enumeration tool as opposed to the account-centric balance and usage 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