AnyAPI
Server Details
Hundreds of scraping and data APIs through one gateway — one key, USD pay-per-request, normalized schemas, automatic failover.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: getting API definition, checking balance, listing APIs, and executing an API. No overlap or confusion.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_api, get_balance, list_apis, run_api), making them predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for an API marketplace/execution service, covering listing, details, execution, and account balance without unnecessary extras.
Core operations (list, detail, execute) are covered plus balance inquiry. Minor potential gaps like key or usage management but not essential for primary use case.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_apiBInspect
Get the full definition of one API by SKU, including its normalized input and output JSON schemas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku_id | Yes | the API SKU slug to describe |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| scraper | Yes | the API definition with input/output schemas |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling (invalid SKU), rate limits, or if authentication is needed. Only states returned content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 16 words, no filler. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 param, no nested objects, output schema present), the description adequately covers purpose and return content. Lacks mention of error cases or SKU format, but still fairly complete for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (sku_id). The description adds that the result includes normalized input and output schemas, but does not elaborate on the parameter itself beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the full definition of one API by SKU', specifying the verb (get) and resource (full definition). It distinguishes from siblings: list_apis lists all, get_balance is unrelated, run_api executes. High purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without comparing to sibling tools like list_apis (for listing all) or run_api (for execution). Agent must infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_balanceAInspect
Get the remaining wallet balance (in USD) for the AnyAPI key supplied as a Bearer token. Requires a valid AnyAPI key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| balanceUsd | Yes | remaining wallet balance for this API key, in USD |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral details. It states the authentication requirement and that the balance is in USD, but lacks information on error handling (e.g., invalid key), rate limits, or confirmation that it is a read-only operation. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and requirement. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers the essential information: what it does (gets balance), in what currency (USD), and the authentication requirement. The output structure is supported by an output schema, so no additional description of return values is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the schema, so the parameter semantics dimension defaults to a baseline of 4. The description adds value by clarifying that the API key is supplied as a Bearer token, which is authentication-related, but not a parameter. This is adequate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool retrieves the remaining wallet balance in USD for the AnyAPI key. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('wallet balance'), and the sibling tools (get_api, list_apis, run_api) are distinct in function, so differentiation is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that a valid AnyAPI key is required, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is implied but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_apisAInspect
List available AnyAPI APIs, optionally filtered by free-text query and/or category. Returns lightweight summaries without schemas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | optional free-text filter over API name and description | |
| category | No | optional category slug to filter by |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| scrapers | Yes | matching APIs |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are 'lightweight summaries without schemas', but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or error handling. Basic behavioral info is present but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Main action and key details are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers filtering and output nature. However, it would benefit from mentioning default behavior (returns all when no filters applied). Still sufficient for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and parameters already have descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating optional filtering. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'APIs', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_api (single API detail) and run_api (execution). It also specifies optional filtering and output nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to list APIs) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the context is clear for a straightforward list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_apiAInspect
Execute an API by SKU with a normalized input payload. Requires a valid AnyAPI key as a Bearer token. Charges credits on success. Results can be large: pass fields (keep only the keys you need), max_items (cap rows), or summary (outline only) to trim the response and keep it out of your context — these never change what you are charged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | normalized input payload matching the API input schema | |
| fields | No | optional: keep only these keys on each result item (dotted paths like 'author.name' descend into nested objects). Shrinks the response without changing cost | |
| sku_id | Yes | the API SKU slug to execute | |
| summary | No | optional: return only a structural outline (top-level keys and item counts) instead of the full data. Does not change cost | |
| max_items | No | optional: cap the number of result items returned; a _truncated note reports how many were withheld. Does not change cost |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hint | No | optional nudge, present only on large untrimmed results, suggesting fields/max_items/summary to keep future responses out of your context |
| items | Yes | number of result rows returned. For per-result SKUs the per-item cost is charged against this; for input-priced SKUs (perItemUnit != result) the charge is per submitted input, independent of this count |
| output | Yes | normalized output payload |
| costUsd | Yes | amount charged to the wallet in USD |
| provider | Yes | the provider serving the request (AnyAPI) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses authentication (Bearer token), cost (charges credits), and response size optimization. With no annotations, it carries full burden and does well, though it could mention idempotency or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded with main action, then requirements and optimization tips. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main functionality, auth, cost, and response control. Output schema exists for return values. Could mention error cases or idempotency, but overall sufficient given complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds context: 'normalized input payload' for input, and explains the cost-independent trimming for fields, max_items, summary. This adds value beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Execute' and resource 'an API by SKU with a normalized input payload'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_api, list_apis, and get_balance by focusing on execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on when to use parameters (fields, max_items, summary) to avoid large responses, and notes the requirement for an API key and credit charges. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context with siblings makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!