OneSimpleAPI

GET|HEAD /api/user

api_get_user

Destructive

Existing api/user API operation. Uses the OneSimpleAPI API (https://onesimpleapi.com/docs), with the same permissions, credits and storage. Supply API parameters in query or body. method defaults to GET. Outputs preserve HTTP status, headers and JSON/text/base64 body; redirects are returned without following them.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "api_get_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	API request body. Nested objects, arrays, HTML, base64 data and all API options retain their original meaning.
`path`	No
`files`	No	Multipart uploads keyed by API field name (for example pdf). Supply file_name, base64 bytes and optional mime_type. Uploads use the existing API file validators.
`query`	No	URL query parameters. Sensitive API options must be in body as documented by the API.
`method`	No
`headers`	No	API request headers such as Idempotency-Key, Range and If-None-Match. Authentication and transport headers are managed by the connection.
`content_type`	No	Defaults to application/json, or multipart/form-data when files are supplied.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real behavior the schema does not: the response preserves HTTP status, headers and raw JSON/text/base64 body, and redirects are returned unfollowed rather than chased. It also discloses that the operation shares the OneSimpleAPI permission, credit and storage model, which is useful forward-looking context. Minor gap: it never explains why a GET/HEAD endpoint is flagged destructive (credit consumption, storage side effects), which is the one thing an agent might want warned about.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and compact at three sentences, with the operational facts (parameter placement, GET default, output preservation, no redirect following) packed efficiently. It loses a bit to the boilerplate opening sentence about "existing" operations that conveys nothing an agent can act on.

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 an open-world HTTP passthrough with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: how arguments map to query/body, the default method, and exactly what the return looks like (status, headers, un-decoded body). The external docs link plus the resource semantics deferred there make the remaining gap — what /api/user actually represents — acceptable rather than a defect.

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 71%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning; the description reinforces it with two useful rules that are not obvious from the schema alone — method defaults to GET, and sensitive API options must go in the body rather than the query string. Beyond those, it does not explain body/path field expectations, and the empty `path` object goes unaddressed.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Existing api/user API operation" restates the name and title rather than saying what the endpoint does or returns (user profile? account settings? usage?). The only added substance is generic wrapper mechanics, not purpose. An agent must infer the resource semantics from the path alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing tells the agent whether this is for reading account/identity data versus any of the sibling api_get_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The line about supplying parameters in query or body is invocation mechanics, not selection guidance.

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

All OneSimpleAPI 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?