Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cmcp

cmcp

by DeveshB-1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Request Methods/GET Request

request_methods_get_request
Read-only

Sends an HTTP GET request to retrieve data from a specified URI and returns echoed headers, query parameters, and the full request URL for inspection.

Instructions

The HTTP GET request method is meant to retrieve data from a server. The data is identified by a unique URI (Uniform Resource Identifier).

A GET request can pass parameters to the server using "Query String Parameters". For example, in the following request,

http://example.com/hi/there?hand=wave

The parameter "hand" has the value "wave".

This endpoint echoes the HTTP headers, request parameters and the complete URI requested.

(Postman request: Request Methods/GET Request | GET https://postman-echo.com/get)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "request_methods_get_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
testNoQuery parameter 'test'123

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response contains headers, query parameters and the full URI, which is useful return-content context for a tool with no output schema. It does not mention that the target server is postman-echo.com's fixed endpoint, though the trailing note implies it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Most of the text is a generic HTTP tutorial about GET and query strings that does not help an agent invoke this specific tool. The operationally important sentence is last rather than front-loaded, and formatting artifacts (backticks, broken line breaks, a Postman request line) add noise.

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?

For a one-parameter echo endpoint with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what the endpoint is, how parameters are passed, and what the response echoes. Only the fixed-host detail is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'test' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description explains the query-string parameter mechanism with a concrete example ('hand=wave'), which adds mild conceptual value but not specifics about the actual 'test' parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 contains a specific statement of what the endpoint does: it 'echoes the HTTP headers, request parameters and the complete URI requested.' That distinguishes it from siblings like headers_request_headers or cookies_get_cookies. However, that key sentence is buried at the end after a generic HTTP tutorial, so the tool's actual identity is slow to surface.

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?

It explains what a GET request is in general terms ('meant to retrieve data from a server'), but gives no tool-selection guidance — nothing about when to use this versus request_methods_post_request, put_request, or the other echo endpoints. The agent must infer choice 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools