Skip to main content
Glama

send

Issue HTTP requests with full control over method, URL, headers, and body. Supports raw headers, connection reuse, and TLS SNI override. Results are stored in the hunt database for later analysis.

Instructions

Send HTTP request and store in hunt database. See rqwstr_docs(topic="hunts") for the core workflow. Cookie handling: an explicit Cookie in headers or raw_headers suppresses the per-hunt cookie jar (the jar is only injected when no Cookie is supplied). A Cookie set in both sources is additive on the wire — both propagate, not deduped. send injects jar cookies outbound but NEVER auto-stores Set-Cookie: for multi-step authenticated flows use chain (forward_cookies), or session(action="import_from_response") after a login response. See rqwstr_docs(topic="cookies") for the full store model and setting explicit Cookie payloads (session fixation, deserialization, etc.).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sniNoTLS SNI override. Decouples SNI from Host header for HTTPS requests. When set the TLS ServerName uses this value instead of the Host header.
urlYesTarget URL (must include scheme)
bodyNoRequest body string
grepNoRegex to filter response. Use .* to return full body
nameNoSave request with this name for quick lookup. If the name is already used in this hunt an integer suffix is appended (name-2, name-3, ...) and the stored name is reported back, so the request stays retrievable via fetch.
notesNoAttach notes to request
methodYesHTTP method (GET POST PUT DELETE etc)
headersNoRequest headers as key-value pairs
raw_pathNoSend URL path exactly as provided without Go net/url normalization. Preserves percent-encoded sequences like %2f literally. For web cache deception and path traversal attacks.
body_fileNoRelative path under hunt artifacts directory for request body; absolute paths require RQWSTR_ALLOW_ABSOLUTE_FILE_PATHS=1. Overrides body.
multipartNoMultipart form-data parts. Each part: {name, value, filename, content_type, body_file/file_path}. File paths are relative to hunt artifacts unless RQWSTR_ALLOW_ABSOLUTE_FILE_PATHS=1. Overrides body/body_file.
timeout_msNoRequest timeout in milliseconds (default 30000)
url_encodeNoURL-encode query parameter values
raw_headersNoRaw headers appended verbatim. No validation — enables duplicate headers and header smuggling. Array of [name, value] pairs: [["X-Custom", "val"]].
http_versionNoHTTP version: 1.0 or 1.1 (default 1.1)
connection_idNoReuse H1 connection by ID. Same connection_id = same TCP connection. For H1 smuggling self-verification (send smuggle + follow-up on same connection). Auto-closes after 60s idle.
keep_alive_msNoHold connection open after response. Milliseconds. Use with connection_id to keep poisoned bytes alive until a victim request.
max_redirectsNoMax redirects to follow (default 10)
save_responseNoRelative path under the hunt artifacts directory to save raw response body bytes
request_targetNoOverride request-line target. Use for absolute-form requests (RFC 7230 §5.3.2) e.g. GET https://backend/ HTTP/1.1
close_connectionNoClose a pooled connection by connection_id. Returns immediately without sending a request.
follow_redirectsNoFollow HTTP redirects (default false)
grep_ignore_caseNoCase insensitive grep matching
pause_after_headers_msNoPause between sending headers and body in milliseconds. For pause-based CL.0 desync attacks where the backend times out waiting for the body.
content_length_overrideNoOverride Content-Length header value independent of actual body length. For CL mismatch smuggling.
save_response_overwriteNoOverwrite an existing save_response artifact (default false)
Behavior4/5

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 discloses critical behavioral traits: cookie jar suppression when explicit Cookie is set, additive cookie behavior, no auto-storing of `Set-Cookie`, and details about `raw_path`, `raw_headers`, and connection reuse. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects or resource limits, which is a minor gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is relatively long (three paragraphs) but packs essential details and references. It could be more concise by front-loading the core purpose and moving cookie technicalities to a separate section. Still, it is well-structured with inline references.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (26 parameters, advanced features like raw_path, raw_headers, cookie jar management), the description covers key behaviors and directs to `rqwstr_docs` for more. It lacks details on the response format or error handling, but is otherwise complete for advanced usage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value for cookie-related parameters (e.g., the interaction between `headers`, `raw_headers`, and Cookie) but does not systematically explain the other 26 parameters beyond the already comprehensive schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's core action: 'Send HTTP request and store in hunt database.' It also references `rqwstr_docs` for the core workflow and provides details on cookie handling, making the purpose distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling `send_h2`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: 'for multi-step authenticated flows use `chain` (forward_cookies), or `session(action="import_from_response")`.' It also points to `rqwstr_docs` for more context, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Kjopstad-IT/rqwstr-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server