Kivel MCP Server

create_mock_api

Create an expiring HTTP or WebSocket mock. For WebSockets, set routes to [] and configure echo, welcome messages or exact text replies in websocket.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "routes": "<routes>"
    },
    "name": "create_mock_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`llm`	No	Text-only OpenAI Chat Completions or Anthropic Messages test double. Empty routes required. Estimated usage; streams are limited to five seconds. Does not run a model or execute tools.
`crud`	No
`echo`	No	Reflect requests; requires empty routes and no CRUD.
`name`	Yes	API name, up to 80 characters.
`routes`	Yes
`websocket`	No
`visibility`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world creation call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new trait — that mocks expire — but says nothing about the TTL, quota/rate limits on creation, or auth requirements. Moderate added value.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the WebSocket special case immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with deep nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the core HTTP/WebSocket split but leaves several high-cost parameters (llm, crud, visibility) unexplained and does not indicate what a caller gets back (mock id/URL) or how long the mock lives. Adequate but clearly incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 43%, and the websocket object has no schema description at all; the description fills that hole by explaining the routes=[] requirement and which websocket fields matter (echo, welcome, replies). It still does not touch llm, crud, visibility or name semantics, so it is helpful rather than complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an expiring HTTP or WebSocket mock') and names the two supported mock protocols, which cleanly separates it from sibling creators like create_email_inbox, create_webhook_inbox or create_phone_number. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Gives one concrete branch condition: for WebSockets, set routes to [] and configure echo, welcome or replies. That is useful routing guidance for the WebSocket case, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over call_mock_api, inspect_mock_api, or other mock-adjacent siblings, and no prerequisites are stated.

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

All Kivel MCP Server 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?