Tulina

http_post

HTTP POST call to the API configured for your org (http connector). path = path relative to the base_url (starts with /). body = JSON body (dict/list). params = optional query params. The configured auth is injected automatically. Use for endpoints that require a POST (paginated search, write operations); what the POST is allowed to do depends on the target API.

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_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`body`	No
`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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that auth is injected automatically and that permitted operations vary by target API. However, for a mutation-capable passthrough it says nothing about idempotency, whether writes are destructive, rate limits, or error semantics — meaningful gaps for a tool that can POST anywhere.

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 the verb and resource, then contract, then parameters, then usage. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields verbatim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter generic passthrough with no output schema, the definition covers invocation well but leaves the agent guessing at response shape (raw JSON passthrough?), error propagation, and pagination behavior of the 'paginated search' case it advertises. Adequate, not complete.

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 coverage is 67%, so the baseline applies. The description adds real meaning for `path` ('relative to base_url, starts with /') and types for `body` (dict/list) and `params` (query params), but the six `_org`/`_group`/`_run_id`/`_account`/`_project`/`_instance` scoping parameters are covered only by the schema, not the description.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (HTTP POST against the org's configured `http` connector) and immediately scopes it with 'path relative to base_url'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from http_get via 'endpoints that require a POST', though it never names the GET sibling outright.

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?

'Use for endpoints that require a POST (paginated search, write operations)' gives a clear selection criterion, and the caveat 'what the POST is allowed to do depends on the target API' sets scope. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to http_get / http_act for other cases.

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?