Skip to main content
Glama

send_raw_request

Send raw HTTP requests with full control over request line, headers, and body. Use for multipart uploads, unusual headers, or HTTP smuggling tests; requires human approval and blocks private IPs.

Instructions

Send a hand-crafted raw HTTP request (like Burp Repeater's raw editor). No proxy required.

REQUIRES: approved=true (human must approve sending potentially destructive requests).

Use this when you need full control over request formatting — multipart uploads, unusual headers, HTTP smuggling payloads, etc. For replaying captured traffic, use replay_flow instead.

Example raw request: POST /api/login HTTP/1.1 Host: target.com Content-Type: application/json

{"username":"admin","password":"test"}

SECURITY: SSRF protection blocks requests to localhost/private IPs.

Args: raw: Complete raw HTTP request text (request line + headers + blank line + body) host: Override the Host header for routing (optional — extracted from Host header if omitted) port: Target port (default: 443 for HTTPS, 80 for HTTP) tls: Use HTTPS (default true). Set false for plain HTTP targets. follow_redirects: Follow HTTP 3xx redirects (default true) approved: MUST be true. Set this ONLY after the human user has explicitly approved this action.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawYes
tlsNo
hostNo
portNo
approvedNo
follow_redirectsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavior: requires approved=true, SSRF protection blocks localhost/private IPs, TLS defaults, redirect following, and host override behavior. This goes far beyond the schema and sets clear expectations for safety and operation.

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 well-structured with sections for usage, security, example, and args. Every sentence adds value, and the example is concise yet illustrative. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool without unnecessary filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, 6 parameters, and absence of annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, security, and parameter semantics thoroughly. The presence of an output schema handles return value details, and the description provides all necessary context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains every parameter: raw is the complete request text, host overrides routing, port defaults, tls for HTTPS, follow_redirects, and approved must be set only after explicit human approval. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Send a hand-crafted raw HTTP request'), identifies the resource (raw HTTP), and distinguishes itself from replay_flow. The analogy to Burp Repeater and the explicit use cases make the purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'Use this when you need full control over request formatting' and a direct alternative 'For replaying captured traffic, use replay_flow instead.' Also clarifies the no-proxy requirement and the mandatory human approval, giving clear conditions for use.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BobongKu/nodriver-proxy-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server