Apiosk MCP Server

Publish a whole project's routes

publish_project

Idempotent

Publish multiple API routes from one project in a single call, creating one gateway listing and paid x402 routes per entry for monetized access.

Instructions

Publish multiple API routes from one project in a single call. Creates one gateway listing for the project and one paid x402 route per entry. Requires an Apiosk provider token.

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": {
      "project_name": "<project_name>",
      "base_url": "<base_url>",
      "settlement_address": "<settlement_address>",
      "routes": "<routes>"
    },
    "name": "publish_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No
`routes`	Yes
`network`	No
`base_url`	Yes	HTTPS base URL of the project's API. Each route's path is appended to it upstream.
`description`	No
`project_name`	Yes
`settlement_address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the call creates a gateway listing plus one paid x402 route per route entry, and that an operator token is required. It doesn't detail every external side effect, but openWorldHint/idempotentHint already cover part of the safety profile, and nothing contradicts 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?

Two clean sentences with no filler. The first front-loads the core action, the second specifies the side effects and the auth requirement.

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?

The high-level behavior is complete enough to select the tool, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. But for a 7-parameter batch operation with sparse schema descriptions, the definition leaves important invocation details (network defaults, settlement_address semantics, price format, idempotent repeat behavior) to inference.

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 coverage is only 14% (only base_url has a description), yet the description adds no parameter-level guidance for project_name, settlement_address, network, tags, or route.price/method semantics. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Publish'), a clear resource ('multiple API routes from one project'), and explains the per-entry side effect. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling publish_x402_route, which handles only a single 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?

It clearly frames the tool as the batch path for publishing a whole project's routes in one call and gives a required precondition (Apiosk provider token). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context against publish_x402_route is clear.

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

Deploy Server