Skip to main content
Glama

AnyAPI

by com.getanyapi.api

Report a bug

report_bug

Tell AnyAPI something is broken. Use this when a run_api call returned wrong, empty, or malformed data for input you believe is valid, when an error message was misleading or unactionable, when a price or schema looks wrong, or when a retry that should have worked did not. Free, never charged. Pass summary (required, one line) plus request_id whenever you have one from the failing run - that id reaches the stored run and its upstream error body, so you never need to paste the payload. Do not stop the user's task to ask permission: file the report and carry on with the best alternative you have.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skuNooptional: the sku_id this is about, e.g. 'instagram.reels_search'
contactNooptional: an email address to reply to. Supply one if you are on a trial key, since a trial has no account we can reach
contextYesExplain 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."
detailsNooptional: what you expected, what you got, and anything you already tried
summaryYesone line saying what went wrong or what you want to tell us
request_idNooptional: the requestId or resultId from the run that went wrong. This is the single most useful field: it reaches the stored run, its attempts, and any upstream error body, so you do not need to paste the payload

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe stored report id; quote it if you contact support about this
receivedYestrue when the report is stored

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that reporting is free and never charged, that request_id reaches the stored run and upstream error body so payloads never need to be pasted, and that the agent should not stop the user's task or ask permission. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then gives concrete use cases, cost information, and operational guidance. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or redundancy despite covering several important aspects.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has an output schema and fully documented parameters, so the description only needs to explain when and how to invoke it. It does that completely: what counts as a bug, which fields to pass, how to handle request_id, and what to do mid-task. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces that summary is required and one line and that request_id is valuable, but it largely restates schema content rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 'Tell AnyAPI something is broken' and then lists unmistakable bug symptoms (wrong/empty/malformed data, misleading errors, bad prices/schemas, failed retries). This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope that clearly separates reporting a bug from generic feedback or API execution.

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 explicit trigger conditions: use when run_api returns bad data, when error messages are misleading, when a price/schema looks wrong, or when a retry that should have worked did not. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name send_feedback as the alternative for non-bug feedback, so it stops just short of a perfect score.

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

All AnyAPI toolsInspect
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