Skip to main content
Glama

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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."
request_idYesdurable request identifier returned by run_api

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNooptional 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
errorNosafe AnyAPI failure code when durable work failed
itemsYesnumber 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
outputYesnormalized output payload
statusNodurable request status: queued, running, succeeded, failed, or expired
costUsdYesamount charged to the wallet in USD
jqErrorNopresent only when a jq expression failed; output then holds the full unshaped result and this explains why the reshape did not apply
providerYesthe provider serving the request (AnyAPI)
replayedYestrue 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
resultIdNoopaque 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
requestIdNodurable request identifier; pass it to get_request to resume without repeating the paid POST
nextActionNomachine-actionable resume instruction present while durable work is pending
serviceOutcomeNoend-to-end AnyAPI service outcome when known
settlementStateNopayment settlement state when known; independent of durable request status

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads AnyAPI stored state, never repeats the paid dispatch, and supports polling after retryAfterSeconds. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, behavioral guarantee, and polling guidance with no filler. The most important and differentiating information 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 full parameter documentation and an output schema present, the description covers the essential usage cycle: inspect state, avoid duplicate dispatch, poll while queued/running. The term 'resume' is slightly unexplained, but the overall call guidance is complete enough for an agent.

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%, and the schema documents both parameters well. The description adds minor context by indicating request_id comes from run_api, but the schema already carries the primary semantic weight.

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?

Description names specific verbs 'Inspect or resume' and a clear resource: durable AnyAPI requests returned by run_api. It also explicitly states that this reads stored state and never repeats the paid provider dispatch, which differentiates it from run_api and other sibling tools.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: after run_api, and while polling 'queued' or 'running' requests via retryAfterSeconds. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the polling guidance is concrete and actionable.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: browsing, searching, retrieving full schemas, quoting, executing, reading cached results, and checking balance. No two tools overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., list_apis, get_balance, run_api), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of an API marketplace. Each tool handles a distinct step in the workflow without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of discovering, quoting, executing, and retrieving results from APIs. Minor gaps include no tool for managing API keys or viewing past runs, but these are not critical for core functionality.