Skip to main content
Glama
DeanWard

HAL (HTTP API Layer)

HTTP OPTIONS Request

http-options

Check available HTTP methods and headers for a specified URL using an OPTIONS request. Supports secret substitution for secure API interactions.

Instructions

Make an HTTP OPTIONS request to a specified URL to check available methods and headers. Supports secret substitution using {secrets.key} syntax in URL and headers where 'key' corresponds to HAL_SECRET_KEY environment variables.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
headersNo
urlYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:679-692 (registration)
    Registration of the 'http-options' tool, including input schema validation using Zod and a handler function that delegates to the shared makeHttpRequest helper with 'OPTIONS' method.
    server.registerTool(
      "http-options",
      {
        title: "HTTP OPTIONS Request",
        description: "Make an HTTP OPTIONS request to a specified URL to check available methods and headers. Supports secret substitution using {secrets.key} syntax in URL and headers where 'key' corresponds to HAL_SECRET_KEY environment variables.",
        inputSchema: {
          url: z.string().url(),
          headers: z.record(z.string()).optional()
        }
      },
      async ({ url, headers = {} }: { url: string; headers?: Record<string, string> }) => {
        return makeHttpRequest('OPTIONS', url, { headers });
      }
    );
  • Core helper function that implements the HTTP request logic for all HTTP tools, including OPTIONS. Handles secret substitution with URL restrictions, global URL filters, fetch execution, response formatting, and automatic secret redaction from outputs.
    async function makeHttpRequest(
      method: string,
      url: string,
      options: {
        headers?: Record<string, string>;
        body?: string;
        queryParams?: Record<string, any>;
      } = {}
    ) {
      try {
        const { headers = {}, body, queryParams = {} } = options;
        
        // First, substitute secrets in URL to get the final URL for validation
        // We need to do this in two passes to handle URL restrictions properly
        const processedUrl = substituteSecrets(url, url);
        
        // Now substitute secrets in headers, body, and query parameters using the processed URL
        const processedHeaders = substituteSecretsInObject(headers, processedUrl);
        const processedBody = body ? substituteSecrets(body, processedUrl) : body;
        const processedQueryParams = substituteSecretsInObject(queryParams, processedUrl);
        
        // Build URL with query parameters
        const urlObj = new URL(processedUrl);
        Object.entries(processedQueryParams).forEach(([key, value]) => {
          if (value !== undefined && value !== null) {
            urlObj.searchParams.set(key, String(value));
          }
        });
        
        const finalUrl = urlObj.toString();
        
        // Check global URL whitelist/blacklist
        const urlCheck = isUrlAllowedGlobal(finalUrl);
        if (!urlCheck.allowed) {
          throw new Error(urlCheck.reason || 'URL is not allowed');
        }
        
        const defaultHeaders = {
          'User-Agent': 'HAL-MCP/1.0.0',
          ...processedHeaders
        };
        
             // Add Content-Type for methods that typically send data
         if (['POST', 'PUT', 'PATCH'].includes(method.toUpperCase()) && processedBody && !('Content-Type' in processedHeaders)) {
           (defaultHeaders as any)['Content-Type'] = 'application/json';
         }
        
        const response = await fetch(finalUrl, {
          method: method.toUpperCase(),
          headers: defaultHeaders,
          body: processedBody
        });
    
        const contentType = response.headers.get('content-type') || 'text/plain';
        let content: string;
        
        // HEAD requests don't have a body by design
        if (method.toUpperCase() === 'HEAD') {
          content = '(No body - HEAD request)';
        } else {
          try {
            if (contentType.includes('application/json')) {
              const text = await response.text();
              if (text.trim()) {
                content = JSON.stringify(JSON.parse(text), null, 2);
              } else {
                content = '(Empty response)';
              }
            } else {
              content = await response.text();
            }
          } catch (parseError) {
            // If JSON parsing fails, try to get text
            try {
              content = await response.text();
            } catch (textError) {
              content = '(Unable to parse response)';
            }
          }
        }
    
        // Redact secrets from response headers and content before returning
        const redactedHeaders = Array.from(response.headers.entries())
          .map(([key, value]) => `${key}: ${redactSecretsFromText(value)}`)
          .join('\n');
        const redactedContent = redactSecretsFromText(content);
    
             return {
           content: [{
             type: "text" as const,
             text: `Status: ${response.status} ${response.statusText}\n\nHeaders:\n${redactedHeaders}\n\nBody:\n${redactedContent}`
           }]
         };
      } catch (error) {
        const errorMessage = error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error';
        const redactedErrorMessage = redactSecretsFromText(errorMessage);
             return {
           content: [{
             type: "text" as const,
             text: `Error making ${method.toUpperCase()} request: ${redactedErrorMessage}`
           }],
           isError: true
         };
      }
    }
  • Zod input schema for the 'http-options' tool: requires a URL (validated as URL format) and optional headers object.
    inputSchema: {
      url: z.string().url(),
      headers: z.record(z.string()).optional()
    }
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool makes HTTP requests, supports secret substitution with specific syntax, and references environment variables. However, it doesn't mention error handling, timeout behavior, authentication requirements beyond secrets, or response format 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states purpose and core functionality. The second adds crucial implementation detail about secret substitution. Every word earns its place in this efficiently structured description.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter usage adequately. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns (response format, error cases) and doesn't mention rate limits, timeouts, or other operational constraints that would be helpful for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining the 'url' parameter accepts secret substitution syntax and 'headers' can also use this syntax. It adds meaningful context about how parameters are used beyond what the bare schema provides, though doesn't detail all possible header values or URL constraints.

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 specific action ('Make an HTTP OPTIONS request') and resource ('to a specified URL') with the explicit purpose 'to check available methods and headers'. It distinguishes from sibling HTTP methods by specifying the OPTIONS verb, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to check available methods and headers'), which implicitly differentiates it from siblings like http-get or http-post that perform different HTTP operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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

Related 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/DeanWard/HAL'

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