Skip to main content
Glama

anyapi

by io.github.getanyapi-com

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

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the all-false annotations: it states the action is free and never charged, explains that request_id reaches the stored run and upstream error body, and instructs the agent to file and continue without asking permission. 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 four sentences with no filler: purpose, trigger conditions, cost implication, parameter guidance, and behavioral directive are each addressed in order. Every sentence earns its place and the most important usage rule is front-loaded.

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?

For a bug-reporting tool with a rich schema and output schema present, the description covers purpose, when to trigger, key parameter guidance, cost, and expected agent behavior. No critical information is missing for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds real value beyond it: it emphasizes that summary is required and one line, positions request_id as the single most useful field, and explains why pasting the payload is unnecessary. This helps the agent prioritize parameters effectively.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Tell AnyAPI something is broken') and then enumerates concrete failure scenarios that make the tool's scope unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes bug reporting from the sibling tools, e.g., run_api and send_feedback.

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 says 'Use this when' and gives a detailed list of triggering conditions: wrong/empty/malformed data, misleading errors, suspicious prices/schemas, and failed retries. It also tells the agent not to pause the user's task and to proceed with the best alternative, which is strong operational guidance.

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

A4.6/5.0
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.

Resources