AnyAPI

Check a request

get_request

Read-only

Inspect or resume a durable AnyAPI request returned by run_api. This reads AnyAPI's stored state and never repeats the paid provider dispatch. Poll again after retryAfterSeconds while status is queued or running.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`request_id`	Yes	durable request identifier returned by run_api

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hint`	No	optional nudge. 'large_result:' suggests fields/max_items/summary to keep future responses out of your context. 'paging_unavailable:' means this result came from a source that cannot return a nextCursor, so it may be INCOMPLETE and you cannot page further - re-run with requireCursor true (may cost more per request) if you need the full list
`error`	No	safe AnyAPI failure code when durable work failed
`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
`status`	No	durable request status: queued, running, succeeded, failed, or expired
`costUsd`	Yes	amount charged to the wallet in USD
`jqError`	No	present only when a jq expression failed; output then holds the full unshaped result and this explains why the reshape did not apply
`provider`	Yes	the provider serving the request (AnyAPI)
`replayed`	Yes	true when this response replays an identical earlier call (same API, same input) from the last few minutes instead of running again: nothing new was executed and costUsd restates the original charge, it was NOT charged a second time
`resultId`	No	opaque handle to the full result, cached ~15 min; pass it to read_result to dig deeper for free (no re-run, no charge). Absent when the result was too large to cache
`requestId`	No	durable request identifier; pass it to get_request to resume without repeating the paid POST
`nextAction`	No	machine-actionable resume instruction present while durable work is pending
`serviceOutcome`	No	end-to-end AnyAPI service outcome when known
`settlementState`	No	payment settlement state when known; independent of durable request status

Schema Changelog

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

AddedSep 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds a critical behavioral guarantee: 'never repeats the paid provider dispatch.' It also clarifies that the tool reads AnyAPI's stored state, which helps the agent reason about side effects and safety.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, behavioral guarantee, and polling guidance. Each sentence adds distinct value and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present and helpful annotations, the description supplies the missing workflow details: retryAfterSeconds polling and the no-repeat dispatch guarantee. The word 'resume' is slightly ambiguous, and the relationship to read_result is not addressed, so a small gap remains.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have clear descriptions, including the request_id provenance and the detailed context requirements. The description adds only slight reinforcement ('returned by run_api'), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with specific verbs ('Inspect or resume') and a clear resource ('durable AnyAPI request returned by run_api'), and then clarifies the actual behavior as reading stored state. This distinguishes it from creation tools like run_api and makes the tool's role understandable instantly.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('returned by run_api') and a concrete polling instruction ('Poll again after retryAfterSeconds while status is queued or running'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as read_result, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All AnyAPI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: discovery (list_apis, search_apis, get_api), pricing (quote_api), execution (run_api), request/result inspection (get_request, read_result), account status (get_balance), and feedback (report_bug, send_feedback). Even the two feedback tools are cleanly separated by defect vs. non-defect.

Naming Consistency5/5

Names consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_api, get_balance, get_request, list_apis, quote_api, read_result, report_bug, run_api, search_apis, send_feedback. There is no mixing of conventions or vague single-word verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is well-scoped for an API gateway/aggregator. Each tool covers a necessary phase of the workflow—discovery, schema/pricing inspection, execution, result retrieval, account balance, and user feedback—without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle from discovering APIs through quoting, executing, checking request status, and reading cached results is well covered. Minor gaps such as no explicit way to cancel a queued/running request or list past requests are workable but not fully closed.

Resources

Need Help?