AgentsID Guard

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

http_request

Send HTTP requests to any URL using GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, or PATCH methods, with custom headers and request body support.

Instructions

Make an HTTP request. GET requires http.get. POST requires http.post. PUT requires http.put. DELETE requires http.delete.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "http_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	URL to request
`body`	No	Request body (for POST/PUT/PATCH)
`method`	No	HTTP method (default: GET)
`headers`	No	Request headers

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each method requires a specific permission (http.get, http.post, etc.), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits other important behaviors such as response format, error handling, or side effects.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and permission context.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns. It does not, and also lacks information on timeouts, redirects, or error behavior. However, the parameter schema is comprehensive and the permission requirements are covered, making it minimally adequate.

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. The description adds value by mapping each HTTP method to its required permission, enriching the semantics of the 'method' parameter beyond the schema's enum listing. Other parameters are already well-described.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource ('Make an HTTP request'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the name and context make the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides permission requirements for each HTTP method but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or contextual cues beyond naming the method-specific permissions.

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