Pay-per-use HTTP proxy. Each proxy_request tool call costs 0.001 USDC on Base Mainnet via x402 protocol. Requires an x402-aware agent to pay automatically.
Scored across 1 tool
With only a single tool, there is no possibility of confusion. The tool uniquely handles HTTP proxying without any overlapping alternatives.
The sole tool name 'proxy_request' follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is descriptive. Consistency is trivially maintained with one tool.
A single tool feels thin compared to typical MCP servers, but it is appropriately scoped for a simple proxy service. It falls in the borderline range for tool count.
The proxy service is fully represented by the proxy_request tool. There are no missing operations for the stated purpose of forwarding HTTPS requests.
Forward an HTTP request to any HTTPS API. Costs 0.001 USDC per call via x402 on Base Mainnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | HTTPS endpoint to call | |
| body | No | Optional request body (JSON string) | |
| method | No | GET | |
| headers | No | Optional HTTP headers |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the cost (0.001 USDC per call) and the execution network (x402 on Base Mainnet), which are non-obvious and important for usage. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or response behavior, but the disclosed cost and protocol details go beyond what the schema provides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and includes essential context (cost and network). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a proxy tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core functionality and cost, but misses some context that would help an agent know what to expect, such as whether the response is the raw HTTP response, how errors are surfaced, or whether authentication to the target API is supported. The schema covers parameter shapes, but the description is thin on runtime behavior beyond the cost.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (url, body, headers), and the method parameter has an enum and default. The description itself does not add semantic information about parameters beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is moderately high (not >80%, but close), the description is not required to compensate significantly, but it also does not add extra meaning to the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Forward an HTTP request to any HTTPS API.' It is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from potential siblings by specifying the target (any HTTPS API) and the action (forward).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for any HTTPS API call, and the cost note suggests using it when payment is acceptable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the HTTPS requirement. Since no sibling tools exist, the absence of alternative comparison is less critical, but clear context for when to use it is still somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
proxy_request
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.