Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cmcp

cmcp

by DeveshB-1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Utilities/Response Status Code

utilities_response_status_code
Read-only

Configures the server to respond with a chosen HTTP status code for testing API behavior; invalid codes return 400 Bad Request.

Instructions

This endpoint allows one to instruct the server which status code to respond with.

Every response is accompanied by a status code. The status code provides a summary of the nature of response sent by the server. For example, a status code of 200 means everything is okay with the response and a code of 404 implies that the requested URL does not exist on server. A list of all valid HTTP status code can be found at the List of Status Codes wikipedia article. When using Postman, the response status code is described for easy reference.

Note that if an invalid status code is requested to be sent, the server returns a status code of 400 Bad Request.

(Postman request: Utilities/Response Status Code | GET https://postman-echo.com/status/200)

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_response_status_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: an invalid requested code yields a 400 Bad Request from the server. It does not explain how the code is actually selected at call time, which is the key behavioral unknown.

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 useful content is one sentence plus the 400-on-invalid note. The intervening paragraph explaining what HTTP status codes are, with a 200/404 example, a Wikipedia link and a Postman reference, is filler that an agent does not need.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and only generic annotations, the description must carry the full burden of explaining how the desired status code is supplied and what the response body looks like. It explains status codes in general instead, leaving the one thing an agent must know — how to pass the code — unresolved.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, which normally sets a baseline of 4, but the description asserts that the caller can instruct the server which status code to respond with while the schema exposes no field for it. That mismatch leaves the actual input mechanism (path segment per the example URL?) undocumented, so the description raises a question it never answers.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: instruct the server which HTTP status code to return. It is clearly distinct from siblings like headers_request_headers or utilities_delay_response, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the other utilities_* endpoints (delay, gzip, deflate, streamed response) that also manipulate the response. The Postman request line hints at the invocation form but is framed as metadata rather than guidance.

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