Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
maviapi

maviapi

by kuzenlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Call a maviapi endpoint

call_api
Read-only

Fetch live, structured JSON from endpoints for websites without direct APIs by passing an API slug, endpoint, and parameters; each successful request uses one maviapi credit.

Instructions

Fetch live, structured JSON from a website through a maviapi endpoint. api is the API slug (or domain), endpoint the endpoint name or path from get_api, and params its parameters, path parameters such as {id} included. List endpoints return 10 results unless you pass limit; page with offset. Each successful call uses one maviapi credit.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "api": "<api>",
      "endpoint": "<endpoint>"
    },
    "name": "call_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiYesAPI slug (e.g. "booking") or the site's domain.
paramsNoEndpoint parameters, as listed by get_api.
endpointYesEndpoint name (e.g. "search") or path (e.g. "/search").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-network behavior are covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those: each successful call consumes one maviapi credit, and list results default to 10 with offset-based paging. It does not cover error behavior or authentication requirements.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then parameter mapping, then pagination behavior, then cost. Every sentence carries distinct operational information and nothing is repeated from the title or 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?

For a three-parameter, nested-params tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation inputs, pagination, and cost, and the annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is the response shape — 'structured JSON' is generic and the agent has no output schema to consult, so a brief note on what a result looks like would complete it.

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 schema already explains `api`, `endpoint` and `params`, making a 3 the baseline. The description only marginally extends this by noting that `params` can include path placeholders such as {id} and that `limit`/`offset` live in `params` — useful, but not a meaningful expansion beyond the schema's own examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: fetch live structured JSON from a website through a maviapi endpoint. It implicitly positions itself as the executor downstream of get_api by saying the endpoint comes 'from get_api', which helps separate it from discovery siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with search_apis or get_api, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 establishes the intended workflow (discover endpoints with get_api, then call one here) and gives concrete operational rules: list endpoints return 10 results by default unless `limit` is passed, and paging uses `offset`. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or of failure/prerequisite conditions, which keeps it below a 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