HAL (HTTP API Layer)

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.14
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool corresponds to a distinct HTTP method (GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS) plus a separate secrets management tool. There is no overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All HTTP tools use a consistent 'http-<method>' naming pattern, and 'list-secrets' follows a similar verb-noun pattern. The naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools covering standard HTTP methods and secrets management, the count is well-scoped for an HTTP API layer. No tool feels extraneous or missing.
Completeness5/5
The set includes all common HTTP methods (GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS) along with secrets management, providing full coverage for typical HTTP interactions.
Average 3.6/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 3, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the secret substitution feature using {secrets.key} syntax, which is a behavioral trait beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, or the idempotency nature of PATCH. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden, but it adds some value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the primary action in the first sentence. It is concise without redundancy, though the secret substitution detail could be more seamlessly integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description does not cover return values, error behavior, or authentication context. It only addresses the request structure and secrets feature, leaving significant gaps for a tool that sends network requests.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning to parameters. It only generically mentions 'optional body and headers' without explaining each parameter's purpose, format, or constraints. The secret substitution detail applies to URL and headers, but it's not tied to the parameters explicitly.
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 explicitly states 'Make an HTTP PATCH request' which is a specific verb+resource combination. The tool name and title align, and it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which represent different HTTP methods (GET, POST, PUT, etc.).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use PATCH versus the sibling methods (POST, PUT, DELETE). The description lacks context about partial updates or idempotency, leaving the agent to infer usage from the method name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses secret substitution feature using {secrets.key} syntax, which is a notable behavior. However, lacks other behavioral details such as idempotency, error handling, or response format. Since annotations are absent, more transparency is needed.
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?
Extremely concise with two sentences conveying essential purpose and a key feature (secret substitution). No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and complex nested parameter (headers), the description omits important context like return values, error responses, or behavior of headers. Incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema. The description mentions secret substitution but does not relate it to parameters. No information on how headers affect the request.
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?
Clearly states 'Make an HTTP GET request to a specified URL', specifying exact verb and resource. Implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like http-post or http-delete by naming the method.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when a GET vs POST is appropriate). No prerequisites or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the secret substitution feature, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention idempotency, response handling, or potential errors, and there are no annotations to supplement these details.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding a key feature. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should be more thorough. It lacks details on response format, authentication, error cases, and idempotency, leaving the agent underinformed for a network operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain each parameter. It only mentions URL, body, and headers, and omits the contentType parameter entirely. The secret substitution hint is useful but insufficient to clarify parameter roles.
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 clearly states the tool makes an HTTP PUT request to a specified URL with optional body and headers. The verb and resource are explicit, and it effectively distinguishes from sibling HTTP methods.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like http-patch or http-post. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions secret substitution, which is a useful feature, but fails to disclose error handling, authentication requirements, idempotency, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds distinct information (the request itself and the secret substitution feature). No wasted words.
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 simple HTTP tool, the description covers the essential action and a key feature (secret substitution). However, it lacks information on response handling, error conditions, and whether the tool modifies server state, which would be relevant given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the secret substitution syntax applicable to both url and headers. However, it does not detail the purpose of the headers parameter beyond being optional, nor the expected URL format beyond URI.
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 clearly states 'Make an HTTP DELETE request', identifying the specific HTTP method and resource. The name and title reinforce this, and the sibling tools include other HTTP methods, making the distinction obvious.
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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like http-get or http-post. The context suggests it is for DELETE requests, but no further context on appropriate scenarios or prerequisites is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses secret substitution behavior, which is positive, but omits details on idempotency, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's safe/unsafe. For a standard HTTP tool, the lack of such details reduces transparency.
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 two sentences long, each serving a purpose: the first states the core operation, the second adds the key feature. No redundant words, and the information is front-loaded.
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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential purpose and a special feature but lacks details on response structure, error handling, and exactly how secrets are resolved. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It notes that body and headers are optional, and secret substitution applies to URL, headers, and body. However, it does not describe the contentType parameter or provide details on the format of headers or the expected body structure.
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 clearly states it makes an HTTP POST request, specifying the method and optional components (body, headers). It also mentions the unique secret substitution feature, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like http-get and http-put.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies standard POST semantics (e.g., creating resources) but does not compare with other methods or highlight alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions secret substitution using {secrets.key} syntax, which adds value, but lacks information on authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No redundant words. Efficiently conveys purpose and a key feature (secret substitution).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main purpose and secret substitution. Could have mentioned that no request body is sent (implied by OPTIONS).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions URL and headers implicitly and adds the secret substitution feature for both. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool makes an HTTP OPTIONS request to check available methods and headers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like http-get and http-post by specifying the HTTP method.
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?
The description implies usage for checking methods/headers but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the behavioral detail of secret substitution using {secrets.key} syntax, which is valuable. However, it does not cover other behaviors such as error handling, redirect following, timeouts, or authentication requirements.
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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key behavior in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description partially compensates by stating the response is 'only headers, no body'. However, it lacks details on status codes, error responses, and potential redirect behavior, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that headers are optional and introduces secret substitution for both URL and headers, adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type definitions.
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 clearly states the verb ('Make an HTTP HEAD request') and specific resource (a URL). It notes that it 'returns only headers, no body', which implicitly differentiates it from sibling tools like http-get that return body content. The mention of secret substitution adds specificity.
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?
The description implies usage when only headers are needed ('returns only headers, no body') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like http-get. No when-not or alternative tool names are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that only key names are shown and never actual secret values, which is a critical safety trait. Additional details like authentication or rate limits are absent, but the primary behavioral constraint is well communicated.
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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a critical safety caveat.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns (key names) and explicitly what it does not return (values). It provides sufficient context for correct usage.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. According to guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4.
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 uses specific verb 'Get a list' and clearly identifies the resource 'available secret keys'. It distinguishes itself from sibling HTTP tools by focusing on secrets. The additional detail about not showing actual values further clarifies purpose.
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?
The description implies usage when a list of secret keys is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Among sibling tools, it is unique, so no competing tool is mentioned, but the description lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![HAL MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeanWard/HAL/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeanWard/HAL)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![HAL MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeanWard/HAL/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DeanWard/HAL)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/DeanWard/HAL'

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