Discoverability and Reuse
Making APIs, MCP servers, capabilities, and related artifacts findable and reusable—reducing duplication and sprawl, and enabling teams to confidently build on what already exists.
Problem Statements (18)
| Problem Statement | Context | Impact | Naftiko Today | Naftiko Tomorrow | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Need Semantic Search for API and MCP Discovery
Traditional filter-based catalog search doesn't match how developers think about their problems, leading to duplicate API development.
|
|||||
|
Need to Prevent MCP Sprawl
Multiple teams are independently building MCP integrations for the same third-party services without coordination or visibility.
|
|||||
|
Need Auto-Discovery of API Artifacts
Building an accurate catalog of APIs and services requires automated discovery rather than manual registration that developers resist.
|
|||||
|
Need to Define What Reuse Means
Pat has been asked to drive API reuse but the organization has never defined what reuse means.
|
|||||
|
Need Discoverability Not Just Governance
Pat realizes the organization has been focused on governance when the actual problem is that teams can't find what already exists.
|
|||||
|
Need Reuse Metrics That Connect to Business Outcomes
Laura needs reuse metrics that show business impact, not just activity counts.
|
|||||
|
Need to Discover and Govern Shadow API Gateways
Riley has an accurate central API inventory but cannot account for APIs on teams' own AWS API Gateways.
|
|||||
|
Need to Map APIs to Products and Business Capabilities
Riley has a clean API inventory but needs to understand how APIs map to products and business capabilities.
|
|||||
|
Need Artifact and Data Element Reuse
Riley realizes reuse isn't just about whole APIs—it's about reusing schemas, data elements, headers, and parameters.
|
|||||
|
Need to Quantify and Incentivize API Reuse
Riley was asked by leadership to answer how well they are reusing APIs and how they are incentivizing improvement.
|
|||||
|
Need Reuse Assessment in Architecture Review
Tina needs a mechanism during architecture review that provokes teams to assess existing capabilities before proposing new ones.
|
|||||
|
Need Central Catalog of 3rd-Party APIs
Noah needs a single catalog where internal teams can discover what 3rd-party APIs the organization uses.
|
|||||
|
Need Knowledge Graphs and Semantic Layers for API Context
Organizations need knowledge graphs and semantic layers to give AI agents structured, contextual understanding of API relationships, business logic, and entity models — not just flat catalogs.
|
|||||
|
Need APIs Discoverable by Agentic Browsers and AI-Native Workspaces
Agentic browsers and AI-native workspaces are becoming the primary interface for discovering and consuming services — APIs need to be optimized for Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), not just traditional developer portals.
|
|||||
|
Need an Internal MCP Server Registry as an Allow-List
Enterprises need an internal registry of approved MCP servers that surfaces inside the developer IDE, acting as an allow-list so developers discover only vetted servers.
|
|||||
|
Need Disease-Specific Information Models
Iris finds that EHRs are deliberately disease-agnostic, so the right information is rarely captured at the first patient encounter — sending patients on multi-month detours through the wrong specialists. She needs disease-specific information models that scaffold what to capture and when.
|
|||||
|
Need Multi-Stakeholder Patient-Centered Interoperability
Iris's project pulls in a vendor, a consultancy, a healthcare provider, and a university — each cares about a different slice of the same patient. She needs an interoperability fabric that lets every stakeholder see only what they should and contribute only what they own.
|
|||||
|
Need EHR-to-Open-Standards Mapping (OMOP, openEHR, FHIR)
Iris and peers across Sweden are starting to ask the same question — how do we map raw vendor EHR records into open standards (OMOP, openEHR, FHIR) without doing it by hand for every region. She needs a declarative, reusable mapping layer that survives EHR vendor changes.
|