Send an HTTP request with method, URL, headers, and body, then return the complete response without truncation.
Send a complete HTTP request and return the full response without truncation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| body | No | ||
| method | Yes | ||
| headers | No | ||
| follow_redirects | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one trait (responses are returned without truncation), but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, redirect behavior (despite a follow_redirects param defaulting true), or side effects of the request.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized and wastes nothing. It is arguably too terse given the missing information, but the sentence itself earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 5-parameter HTTP client with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition is under-specified on how to construct requests, what methods are expected, or how body/headers interact.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them (method, url, body, headers, follow_redirects). With required params undocumented and no compensating prose, the agent gets no help beyond the raw JSON types.
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 states a specific verb (send) and resource (HTTP request) and adds a distinguishing behavioral claim ('complete', 'full response without truncation'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts against obvious siblings like websex_curl, websex_httpie, or websex_http_repeater, so an agent cannot easily tell which HTTP tool to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as curl/httpie for CLI-style requests or http_repeater/http_intruder for session-based work. The agent is left to infer selection from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.