Skip to main content
Glama

anyapi

by io.github.getanyapi-com

Send feedback

send_feedback

Tell AnyAPI something that is not a defect: an API you wanted and could not find in the catalog, a field missing from a result you needed, a confusing part of the docs or tool descriptions, or what would have made a task easier. Free, never charged. Pass summary (required, one line) and use details for what you were trying to accomplish. Use report_bug instead when something behaved incorrectly.

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide only neutral hints, so the description carries much of the behavioral burden. It adds the useful 'Free, never charged' cost signal and clarifies the feedback is not a defect report, but it does not describe side effects, delivery behavior, or what happens after submission. This is acceptable but not deeply transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the cost note, parameter guidance, and the sibling-tool handoff. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence earns its place and no information is repeated from the schema.

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?

Given the rich schema, output schema, and sibling context, the definition is close to complete: it covers what the tool is for, what it is not for, and which alternative to use. The main residual gap is that the description does not mention the required 'context' parameter behavior, although the schema explains it in detail.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of parameter nuance ('summary' should be one line; 'details' should describe what the user was trying to accomplish), but it does not discuss the required 'context' parameter or the optional fields. The schema handles those adequately.

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 uses a specific action ('Tell AnyAPI something that is not a defect') and enumerates concrete cases: a missing API, a missing field, confusing docs, or something that would have made a task easier. It also explicitly differentiates from report_bug, so an agent can immediately recognize this is for non-defect 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 states exactly when to use this tool and names the alternative: 'Use report_bug instead when something behaved incorrectly.' It also gives multiple valid use examples, making the selection boundary clear even without inspecting other tools.

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