Apiosk MCP Server

apiosk_publish_api

Publish a new API on Apiosk directly from your agent using the active local wallet or private key, eliminating the need for a dashboard.

Instructions

Publish a new API on Apiosk using the active local wallet or APIOSK_PRIVATE_KEY. No dashboard required.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "endpoint_url": "<endpoint_url>",
      "price_usd": "<price_usd>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "apiosk_publish_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`category`	No
`price_usd`	Yes
`wallet_id`	No
`description`	Yes
`endpoint_url`	Yes
`listing_group`	No
`listing_metadata`	No	Optional MCP-native metadata override. Defaults are generated automatically.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: publishing is performed via the active local wallet or APIOSK_PRIVATE_KEY and requires no dashboard. This exposes an important auth/execution path beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the action, the resource, the platform, the auth mechanism, and the no-dashboard context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite an output schema existing, the description is too sparse for a 9-parameter publish operation with an 11% schema description coverage. It omits guidance on how required fields should be chosen, what listing_group options imply, how listing_metadata is used, and what prerequisites besides the wallet/private key may exist.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 11%, so the description needs to compensate for 9 under-documented parameters. It adds some meaning around wallet/private-key authentication, but it does not explain the core required fields such as name, slug, endpoint_url, price_usd, description, or the optional listing_group and listing_metadata semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a new API on Apiosk.' It clearly indicates the action is creating/publishing, not updating or deleting, and the platform is named. The phrase 'new API' also distinguishes this from update/delete siblings and from publish_project or publish_x402_route.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: when the user wants to publish an API without using a dashboard, using the active local wallet or APIOSK_PRIVATE_KEY. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as apiosk_update_api or publish_x402_route.

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

Deploy Server