Tulina

http_get

Read-only

Read-only HTTP GET call to the API configured for your org (http connector). path = path relative to the base_url (starts with /). params = optional query params. The configured auth (bearer, API key, basic, oauth2) is injected automatically.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "http_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`path`	Yes
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`params`	No
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`_account`	No	Compte à OPÉRER parmi : `Cal.com` (org), `Qonto` (org). `oto_identity(op='list')`.
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description adds real context beyond them: the base_url relative-path constraint, and the fact that configured auth (bearer, API key, basic, oauth2) is injected automatically. It stops short of covering rate limits, error responses, or response shape, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 sentences, no filler; the read-only framing and connector scope come first, followed by the two argument semantics and the auth note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema the description does not state what a GET returns (presumably raw JSON), which is a gap, but for a thin HTTP passthrough the auth-injection and path-format details plus the rich framework-parameter schema cover what is needed to call it correctly.

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 75%, so most parameters are self-documented, but the two operative ones benefit from the description: `path` has no schema description and the text explains it is relative to base_url and must start with '/', while `params` is clarified as optional query parameters. The remaining framework params are covered by their own French schema 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?

Names a specific verb (HTTP GET) plus resource (the org-configured API endpoint) and explicitly frames it as read-only, which distinguishes it from the sibling http_post and http_act tools without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

States the read-only nature and the connector dependency ('the API configured for your org'), which implies when it applies, but never names alternatives such as http_post for writes or http_doc for API discovery, and gives no exclusion conditions.

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

All Tulina tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?