Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

pipehero

by io.github.pipehero
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

run_api_endpoint

Destructive

Send an endpoint against an environment and return the real response (status, headers, body up to 20 KB). A local environment goes through the user's tunnel to their localhost (the CLI must be running); staging/prod are sent from Pipehero's cloud (Pro/Team) to public addresses only. Sending to a prod environment with a write method needs confirm_write_to_prod: true, which you should only pass after the user agrees. Use it to check that the code you wrote behaves as documented.

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": {
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>",
      "environment": "<environment>"
    },
    "name": "run_api_endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoRoute path as written in the code, e.g. /v1/charges/:id or /v1/charges/{id}.
methodNoHTTP method of the route, e.g. POST. Use with path instead of endpoint_id.
variablesNoValues for {{variables}} the environment doesn't define, e.g. {"id": "ch_123"}.
endpoint_idNoId of the endpoint. Alternative to method + path.
environmentYesEnvironment name or id, e.g. local.
collection_idYesId from list_api_collections.
confirm_write_to_prodNoNeeded to send a write method (POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE) to a prod environment. Only pass true after the user agrees.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_write_to_prod / description
      Added value: +"Needed to send a write method (POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE) to a prod environment. Only pass true after the user agrees."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial detail beyond them: the 20 KB body truncation, tunnel requirement for local, that staging/prod egress from the cloud and only reach public addresses, and the prod-write confirmation gate. This is exactly the side-effect and prerequisite context an agent needs before firing a real request.

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-loads the action and return shape, then layers prerequisites and the prod safety gate in a tight four sentences with no filler. Minor awkwardness in 'Send an endpoint against an environment' keeps it from a 5.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Seven parameters are all schema-documented, there is no output schema but the description describes the return shape (status, headers, truncated body), and the risky path (prod write) is fully gated. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: environment names carry different execution paths and reachability, and confirm_write_to_prod should only be set after explicit user agreement. That elevates it above the schema-only baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send an endpoint against an environment') and immediately defines the outcome ('return the real response (status, headers, body up to 20 KB)'), which separates it from siblings like replay_request or send_test_webhook that also produce traffic. An agent knows this executes a live HTTP call rather than inspecting or editing an endpoint.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('check that the code you wrote behaves as documented') plus the routing conditions for local vs staging/prod and the prerequisite that the CLI must be running. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead' pointer to a sibling, so it stops short of the top score, but the when-to-use context is unambiguous.

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

All pipehero toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources