postSend a POST request to httpbin.org with optional body and custom headers; returns the echoed request including parsed JSON body, form data, and headers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| headers | No | ||
| content_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "body": {
+ "name": "test",
+ "value": 123
+ },
+ "content_type": "application/json"
+ },
+ {
+ "body": "plain text data",
+ "headers": {
+ "X-Request-ID": "abc123"
+ }
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from httpbin POST endpoint",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool echoes the request with parsed JSON, form data, and headers. No contradictions.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and quickly covers purpose and returns. No wasted words.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters with no descriptions, and the description does not fully compensate. While the output schema exists, the description omits context about the tool's demo nature (e.g., 'use for testing'), leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only mentions 'optional body and custom headers' vaguely. It does not explain the 'content_type' parameter or how headers should be structured. Examples in schema supplement slightly but not in description.
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 it sends a POST request to httpbin.org with optional body and headers. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get' (GET request) and 'headers'. The specific endpoint and method are clear.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It is implied for POST requests to httpbin, but no exclusions or contexts are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.