Mockbird

custom_route

Define a custom endpoint on a project (like /health, /config/:key, or a catch-all /webhooks/* request bin). body is a response template: {{query.x}} {{params.x}} {{body.x}} {{headers.x}} {{method}} {{path}} {{now}} {{ts}} {{uuid}} {{rand}}; triple braces {{{body}}} insert raw JSON. Custom routes take precedence over resource routes; '*' catch-alls are a fallback. Max 20 routes/project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Response body template (string; JSON works).
`path`	Yes	e.g. /health, /config/:key, /webhooks/*
`method`	No	Default GET.
`status`	No	Response status (default 200).
`delayMs`	No	Artificial latency in ms.
`project`	Yes
`adminKey`	Yes
`contentType`	No	Default application/json.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: body template syntax with variable substitutions, triple braces for raw JSON, method/status/contentType defaults, precedence over resource routes, and the 20-route limit.

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 description is dense but informative, delivering all key points in one paragraph; could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., bullets) for easier scanning.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers template syntax and limits but omits what the tool returns (e.g., the created route) and error handling, leaving the agent somewhat uncertain about the response.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning (e.g., template syntax for 'body', default values for method/status/contentType), though it does not detail 'project' or 'adminKey' beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states it 'Define a custom endpoint on a project' with concrete examples like '/health, /config/:key, or a catch-all /webhooks/* request bin', and distinguishes from resource routes by noting precedence and fallback behavior.

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?

It explains when to use (for custom endpoints) and notes constraints ('Max 20 routes/project') and precedence rules, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use.

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

All Mockbird tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource/operation: project lifecycle, resource seeding, artifact import, record CRUD, custom routes, snapshots, request inspection, and external API status. Even the data-population tools are clearly separated by existing project (add_resource) versus new project (import_data/create_project).

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (add_resource, create_project, query_records, write_record, delete_project, etc.). A few noun-style names (custom_route, project_info, snapshots) break the pattern, but all names are snake_case and readable.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools is a well-scoped set for a mock API server: project creation/deletion, data population/import, record operations, snapshots, custom routes, inspection, and API status all have dedicated tools without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is well covered: create/delete projects, add/import resources, CRUD records, snapshot state, define routes, and inspect requests. The main gaps are the lack of explicit resource deletion and custom-route update/delete, but these are workaroundable rather than blocking.

Resources

Need Help?