OneSimpleAPI

POST /api/page_status

api_post_page_status

Destructive

Check web page status, HTTP headers, and SSL certificate information Uses the OneSimpleAPI API (https://onesimpleapi.com/docs), with the same permissions, credits and storage. Supply API parameters in query or body. This tool always uses POST; do not supply method. 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_post_page_status"
  }
}

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.
`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.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: redirects are returned without being followed, output preserves HTTP status/headers/body including base64, and the call consumes OneSimpleAPI credits and storage under the same permissions. That last point is real cost context an agent cannot get from the schema. It does not explain why the call would be destructive in practice despite destructiveHint=true.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by provider/credits context and then behavioral constraints. The prose is dense with comma-spliced clauses, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 6-parameter open-world POST tool with no output schema, the definition covers result shape (status, headers, body encodings), redirect handling, and auth/credits, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Unexplained is the discrepancy between a status check and the destructive/non-idempotent annotations.

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 83%, so the schema already documents url and output with their enum-like options. The description adds only the placement rule (query vs body, with sensitive options in body), which is largely duplicated in the query parameter's own description. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource set: check web page status, HTTP headers, and SSL certificate information. That is clearly distinguishable from sibling POST tools like api_post_image_info or api_post_pdf. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (api_post_page_info) to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

It states an operational rule — always POST, do not supply method — and explains that API parameters may go in query or body. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over api_post_page_info or other status-adjacent siblings, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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?