Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cmcp

cmcp

by DeveshB-1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Utilities/GZip Compressed Response

utilities_gzip_compressed_response
Read-only

Returns a gzip-compressed JSON echo of the request when the client sends Accept-Encoding: gzip, reducing response bandwidth for compression testing.

Instructions

This endpoint returns the response using gzip compression algorithm. The uncompressed response is a JSON string containing the details of the request sent by the client. For this endpoint to work, one should request with Accept-encoding header containing gzip as part of its value. Postman supports gzip, deflate and SDCH decoding and automatically sends them as part of the request.

HTTP Compression allows the server to send responses in a compressed format, which is uncompressed by the client before processing. This reduces network bandwidth consumption at the cost of increase in CPU usage. To know more about this, refer the HTTP Compression wikipedia article.

(Postman request: Utilities/GZip Compressed Response | GET https://postman-echo.com/gzip)

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": "utilities_gzip_compressed_response"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the required Accept-Encoding header, the fact that the payload is an echo of the sent request, and the compression/bandwidth tradeoff. It never explains error behavior when the header is missing, which is the one operational gap.

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?

The operational detail that matters — send `Accept-Encoding: gzip` — is buried in the second sentence behind a generality about the response. Two of the remaining sentences are a generic tutorial on HTTP compression with Wikipedia links, and the Postman/SDCH aside adds nothing for an agent invoking the tool.

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 zero-parameter demo endpoint with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the header precondition, and the shape of the returned payload. Only the failure mode (missing/incorrect Accept-Encoding) is unaddressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The header requirement is a de facto input and is documented in the description rather than the empty schema, which is appropriate.

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 names the specific behavior: the endpoint returns a gzip-compressed response whose uncompressed payload is a JSON echo of the client's request. That is a clear verb+resource and more informative than the title alone. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling utilities_deflate_compressed_response, which is the obvious alternative an agent would weigh.

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?

It does state a real precondition — the request must include `Accept-encoding` containing `gzip` — which is actionable invocation guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over the deflate or plain-response siblings, so the choice among them is left entirely to inference.

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