Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apify

actors-mcp-server

Official
by apify
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Report a problem

report-problem

Submit issues about Apify MCP tools or Actors to the Apify team so they can diagnose errors, timeouts, missing tools, or confusing results and fix them for others.

Instructions

Report a problem with Apify's MCP tools or Actors to the Apify team.

Reports can describe missing tools or Actors, errors, timeouts, confusing results, steps that took several attempts, or tasks that the available tools could not complete. Reports help fix the problem for other users.

Put what you were doing and what went wrong in "message". Do NOT include personal data, credentials, secrets, or verbatim private conversation content — describe the issue in your own words.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actorIdNoOptional. The Actor this problem is about, e.g. apify/rag-web-browser.
messageYesWhat happened: the problem you hit. Required. Keep it to a few sentences (max 2000 characters).
actorRunIdNoOptional. The Actor run this problem is about.
relatedToolsNoOptional. Names of the MCP tools involved in this problem (up to 20).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reportedYesAlways true; the problem report was submitted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.14.2
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "reported": {
+      "description": "Always true; the problem report was submitted",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "reported"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv0.14.0
  3. Removedv0.13.0
  4. Addedv0.11.6

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a privacy constraint forbidding personal data, credentials, secrets, and verbatim private conversation content, plus the downstream effect that reports help other users. It does not describe what happens after submission or any acknowledgment, so not a 5.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each earning its place: purpose first, then the trigger examples, then the data-handling instruction. No filler, and the most important constraint (privacy) is stated last but explicitly.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations already carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and the privacy caveat, leaving no material gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds actionable framing beyond it: it directs the agent to put the context ('what you were doing') and the failure in the 'message' field. It says nothing extra about actorId, actorRunId, or relatedTools, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 states a specific verb+resource (report a problem with Apify's MCP tools or Actors) and names the recipient (the Apify team). This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, which are operational (search-actors, call-actor, get-actor-run, etc.).

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?

It enumerates concrete trigger conditions — missing tools or Actors, errors, timeouts, confusing results, multi-attempt steps, and tasks the available tools could not complete — which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not state when NOT to report or name any alternative action, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools