Execute custom curl commands with full argument control to test APIs, debug requests, and perform specialized HTTP transfers.
Execute a custom curl command with full control over parameters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes | Array of curl arguments (without 'curl' command itself) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Full control over parameters' hints that arbitrary curl arguments are accepted, but the description never states whether the command is sandboxed, whether it can perform destructive or non-idempotent operations (e.g. -X DELETE, -o file writes, @file uploads), what auth context it inherits, or any rate/scope limits. For an effectively arbitrary-command execution tool, this is a serious disclosure gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently worded, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions rather than earning extra credit here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a high-complexity, high-risk tool (arbitrary network/command execution) with no annotations and no output schema. The description omits the safety profile, execution constraints, authentication context, and how results are returned, leaving the agent unable to judge risk or expected behavior before invoking it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter whose meaning ('array of curl arguments without the curl command itself') is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Execute a custom curl command', which an agent can understand without opening the schema. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish this from the nine sibling HTTP tools (http_get, http_post, http_delete, etc.), so an agent must guess why it would choose raw curl over a typed wrapper.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous siblings that cover the same protocols (http_get, http_post, http_put, http_delete, http_upload). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of when raw argument control is preferable to a structured HTTP tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.