Skip to main content
Glama

Read a saved result

read_result
Read-only

Dig deeper into a paid run WITHOUT re-running or paying again. Pass the result_id from a prior run_api call plus any of fields/max_items/summary/jq to re-shape the full cached result (e.g. read the rest of the rows, or slice a large field with jq). Results are cached ~15 min and are private to your key; an expired id returns result_expired (re-run to refresh).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jqNooptional: a jq expression to reshape the result; its output replaces 'output'. Example: '.data | {title, description, md: .markdown[:3500]}'. Sandboxed 250ms/2MB budget
fieldsNooptional: keep only these keys on each result item (dotted paths like 'author.name' descend into nested objects)
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."
summaryNooptional: return only a structural outline (top-level keys, item counts, per-field byte sizes) instead of the full data
max_itemsNooptional: cap the number of result items returned; a _truncated note reports how many were withheld
result_idYesthe resultId returned by a prior run_api call (cached ~15 min)

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses caching (~15 min), privacy (private to your key), and expiration behavior (result_expired). It also explains that fields/max_items/summary/jq reshape the cached result, adding transparency about how the tool modifies output. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the key benefit ('Dig deeper into a paid run WITHOUT re-running or paying again'), and packs essential usage and behavioral info without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main use cases, caching, expiration, privacy, and reshaping capabilities. It doesn't miss critical information an agent needs to call it correctly, and the output schema covers return details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds value by explaining how the parameters collectively reshape the result and gives a concrete jq example ('.data | {title, description, md: .markdown[:3500]}'). This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'read' and the resource 'cached result' from a prior run_api call, explicitly distinguishing it from running a new API call. It says 'WITHOUT re-running or paying again' and gives concrete examples like 'read the rest of the rows' or 'slice a large field with jq', making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly frames when to use this tool: to avoid re-running or paying for a paid run. It references the alternative run_api ('from a prior run_api call') and provides usage examples (read more rows, slice large field). It also warns about the expiration case ('an expired id returns result_expired (re-run to refresh)'), telling the agent when to re-run instead.

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.