anyapi
Server Details
Hundreds of scraping & data APIs through one key. USD pay-per-request, normalized schemas, 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 4.1/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: listing APIs, fetching API details, running an API, and checking balance. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_api, get_balance, list_apis, run_api. No mixing of conventions.
With 4 tools, the surface is concise yet covers the essential operations for an API marketplace: browse, inspect, execute, and billing. Well-scoped.
The tool set covers all key stages: discovery (list_apis), specification (get_api), execution (run_api), and account management (get_balance). No obvious gaps for the domain.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_apiAInspect
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 the description carries full burden. It discloses the return content (full definition with schemas) but does not mention error handling, authentication, or side effects. Adequate for a simple read-only tool.
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, no redundant words, front-loaded with the essential action and result. Highly efficient.
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 (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is fully sufficient. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, requiring no additional details.
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 description coverage is 100% (sku_id described as 'the API SKU slug to describe'). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
Description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('full definition of one API by SKU'), and what is included ('normalized input and output JSON schemas'). Distinguishes from siblings (get_balance, list_apis, run_api) which serve different purposes.
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 usage context (when you need an API's definition), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools. However, the sibling differentiation is clear from their names.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the behavior: it retrieves the remaining wallet balance (read-only operation) and requires a valid API key. For a simple 0-parameter tool, this is adequate transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loading the key action and resource, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence 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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (not shown but present), the description is complete. It covers the essential requirement and action, and the context from sibling tools makes it clear when to use.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'remaining wallet balance' clearly indicating what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_api, list_apis, and run_api which deal with APIs rather than wallet balance.
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 states the requirement 'Requires a valid AnyAPI key,' which gives clear context on prerequisites. It does not explicitly mention when to use or alternatives, but the simplicity of the tool and differentiation from siblings makes the usage context sufficiently clear.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Notes that it returns 'lightweight summaries without schemas,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), pagination, rate limits, or ordering.
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?
Description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value; no excess. Highly concise.
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 that an output schema exists, description doesn't need to detail returns. It mentions summaries, which is helpful, but missing information on pagination or sorting. For a list tool with no annotations, more context would be beneficial.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description reiterates that parameters filter by query and category, but adds no further meaning beyond the schema definitions.
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?
Description clearly states 'List available AnyAPI APIs' with a specific verb and resource. It adds optional filtering and notes the output type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_api (detail retrieval) and run_api (execution). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.
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?
Implies usage for browsing APIs, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. No alternatives mentioned. Sibling tool names provide some context but description lacks direct guidance.
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?
No annotations exist, so description must carry behavioral weight. It discloses credit charging, response size concerns, and that trimming parameters don't affect cost. However, it omits details on failure modes, rate limits, or idempotency, which are relevant for an execution tool.
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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence covers core action and prerequisites. Second sentence provides crucial usage guidance for response management.
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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers authentication, cost, and output trimming. It lacks explanation of the normalized input payload structure, but the schema handles that. Overall, sufficient for the agent.
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 the description adds meaningful context beyond schema: clarifies dotted paths for fields, structural outline for summary, and the _truncated note for max_items. These details help the agent use parameters correctly.
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 it executes an API by SKU with a normalized input payload. It distinguishes from read-only siblings like get_api, get_balance, and list_apis by emphasizing execution and credit charging.
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 clear context: requires a valid AnyAPI key as Bearer token and charges credits on success. Offers guidance on using fields, max_items, and summary to manage response size without affecting cost. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is distinct from siblings.
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!