Apiosk MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

apiosk_get_started

Set up local Apiosk access by importing a connect string or creating/selecting a wallet, then run a discovery probe and a small test call.

Instructions

Set up local Apiosk access by importing a connect string or creating/selecting a wallet, then run a discovery probe and a small test call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`test_slug`	No	Optional API slug for the test call. Defaults to the first discovered API.
`wallet_id`	No	Optional existing local wallet id to select before running the test call.
`test_input`	No	Optional JSON input for the test call. Defaults to an empty object.
`wallet_label`	No	Label to use if a new local wallet must be created. Defaults to Apiosk wallet.
`connect_token`	No	Optional connect token to save locally when you do not have the full connect string.
`create_wallet`	No	Defaults to true when no managed connect token is configured.
`connect_string`	No	Optional dashboard connect string to save locally for managed access.
`test_operation`	No	Optional explicit operation for the test call.
`wallet_address`	No	Optional wallet address to save with a managed connect token.
`connect_header_name`	No	Optional connect header override. Defaults to X-Apiosk-Connect-Token.
`include_qr_data_url`	No	Include QR image data when funding instructions are returned.
`connect_authorization`	No	Optional Authorization header value to save alongside a managed connect token.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedv1.8.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the actual workflow, including importing credentials, wallet creation/selection, a discovery probe, and a test call. It does not spell out persistence details such as where secrets are stored, but the main behavioral surface is disclosed.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the purpose and then lists the phases in order. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Despite 12 optional parameters, the description gives a complete high-level execution model, and the output schema plus per-parameter schema descriptions cover the remaining details. It could mention explicit default behavior when no arguments are supplied, but the create_wallet schema description already handles that.

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 every parameter is already documented; the tool description need not repeat them. It only loosely maps the connect-string/wallet/test parameters to the setup workflow, without adding semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific goal ('Set up local Apiosk access') and enumerates the concrete steps: import a connect string or create/select a wallet, then run a discovery probe and a test call. This differentiates it from the many sibling wallet/API tools by framing it as a multi-step onboarding helper.

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 context is clear: this is for initial local Apiosk setup and validation, before normal API work. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for already-configured users, so it stops short of giving when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Install Server