Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hoppscotch Public Docs MCP

Hoppscotch Public Docs MCP

by KidiXDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_endpoint

Retrieve full request details for a Hoppscotch API endpoint using its request ID, and fetch saved response examples when needed.

Instructions

Get full request details for an ID from search_documentation or list_endpoints. Pass response_name for a saved response example. Call only for relevant routes to keep context small.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doc_urlNo
request_idYes
response_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a context-economy constraint ('keep context small'), implying large return payloads, but says nothing about what a call consumes, whether results are cached, or how large responses behave.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. The final advisory sentence earns its place by constraining call frequency.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the shape and volume of what comes back, since it already raises the context-size concern. The workflow guidance is good, but the return-value picture remains incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0% across 3 params, so the description must compensate. It explains request_id's provenance and response_name's purpose, but doc_url is entirely undefined and request_id's format (ID vs URL) is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get full request details for an ID'. It also names the sibling tools that produce the ID, which lets an agent place it in the workflow. It does not specify what 'full request details' includes (headers, body, params), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives explicit sourcing guidance ('ID from search_documentation or list_endpoints'), a conditional for response_name, and a caution to call it only for relevant routes. It does not contrast against get_document, so the sibling boundary is only partly drawn.

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