Skip to main content
Glama

Modify Request

modify_request

Update a Bruno API request file by merging only the fields you provide, preserving all others. Edit URLs, headers, auth, body, scripts, assertions, or settings; supports rename, file uploads, and multipart data in one call.

Instructions

Update an existing Bruno request file with partial-merge semantics. Only provided fields are updated; all other fields are preserved. Supports multipart/form-data with file uploads and per-part contentType. Inline scripts REPLACE the existing script of the same type by default (idempotent — repeated calls do not accumulate duplicate blocks); pass scriptMode:"append" to concatenate instead. Use remove_script to clear a script entirely. RENAMING: name and filename are independent, as they are in Bruno itself — name changes the request's name inside the file and filename moves the file. Pass both to keep them in step, and read the new path back from the response.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
authNo
bodyNo
grpcNogRPC-only fields. Applies to kind "grpc" and is refused otherwise. Headers given for a gRPC request are written as metadata, which is that transport's only header surface.
nameNoThe request's name inside the file. Does NOT rename the file — pass filename for that.
varsNo
queryNo
assertNoReplaces the whole assert block. Omit to leave existing assertions untouched.
methodNo
headersNo
scriptsNoInline scripts to persist with the request. Keys: pre-request, post-response, tests (aliases before-request/after-response accepted). Avoids a separate add_test_script call. IMPORTANT for tests/post-response: only assertions inside a test() block are reported. Write test("status is 200", function() { expect(res.getStatus()).to.equal(200); }); — a bare expect() at the top level still runs, but a passing one records nothing, so run_collection reports "tests": [] and the request looks green with no assertions. Available in scripts: res.getStatus()/getStatusText()/getHeader(name)/getHeaders()/getBody()/getResponseTime(), res.getStopReason()/getCloseCode()/getSessionTruncated() on a websocket request, which report the same session outcome the result does (all null or false on an HTTP response, which has no session), bru.setVar(name, value)/getVar(name)/getEnvVar(name)/hasEnvVar(name), and expect(actual) with .to.equal/.contain/.include, .to.have.property/.lengthOf, .to.be.a/.an, .to.be.above/.below/.at.least/.at.most (aliases .gt/.lt/.gte/.lte/.greaterThan/.lessThan), .to.be.within(min, max), .to.be.oneOf([...]), .to.match(/re/), .to.startWith/.endWith, .to.be.true/.false/.null/.undefined/.empty/.json,and .to.not.* negations. VARIABLES: bru.getVar(name) resolves environment and collection variables as well as anything a script set, so an environment variable needs no shadow copy to be readable. bru.getEnvVar(name) is narrower on purpose: it reads the environment layer only, so a runtime variable of the same name does not shadow it. There is no setEnvVar — nothing here writes an environment file. RETURN TYPE: res.getBody() returns the response already parsed into a JS object/array when the Content-Type is application/json or a +json type (raw text otherwise). Access fields directly — res.getBody().field — and do NOT JSON.parse() it, which throws SyntaxError: "[object Object]" is not valid JSON.
filePathYesAbsolute path to the .yml or .bru request file to modify. Get from list_requests or get_collection_stats.
filenameNoRenames the file, keeping it in its own folder. Basename only, no path separators. The extension is optional and must match the collection's format if given, since a collection carries one format only. Refused if another file of that name already exists. The new path comes back in the response; use it as filePath from then on, because the old one is gone.
settingsNoRequest-level settings: transport behaviour (timeouts, redirects, URL encoding), not payload. What reaches the file depends on the dialect, because Bruno's own two writers differ: a .yml request always carries a fully resolved settings block whether or not you pass one, while a .bru request carries only what you supply. On modify_request the fields are merged individually over the existing block, so setting one does not clear the rest. Note the encodeUrl field: in .bru, creating a block at all changes the URL-encoding default.
websocketNoWebSocket-only fields. Applies to kind "websocket" and is refused otherwise.
pathParamsNoReplaces the declared path parameters; query parameters are left alone.
scriptModeNoHow to write the scripts field. "replace" (default) overwrites the existing script of each provided type, so calling modify_request repeatedly is idempotent. "append" concatenates onto the existing script, which accumulates blocks across calls. Each script type has its own slot in both .bru and .yml, so replacing one leaves the others untouched. One exception on .yml: supplying post-response and tests together in a single call still merges both into the after-response slot, so write the tests script in its own call to keep it in the tests slot.replace
Install Server

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers: partial-merge preservation of unprovided fields, idempotent script replacement (repeated calls do not accumulate), the append escape hatch, and the subtle name/filename independence mirroring Bruno's own behavior. It also points the caller to read the new path from the response after a rename. It doesn't cover reversibility or auth requirements, but for a file-editing tool the disclosed traits go well beyond the minimal mutation hint.

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?

The description is three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core merge semantics before moving to script behavior and rename rules. Every sentence carries non-redundant information; the append-mode, remove_script reference, and filename/name distinction each earn their place. Slightly long for a one-liner, but the density justifies the length given the tool's complexity.

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 high complexity (17 parameters, nested objects for auth/body/grpc/settings/websocket/vars) and no output schema, the description covers the cross-cutting behaviors — merge semantics, script modes, file uploads, rename handling — while the schema exhaustively documents individual fields. It even hints at the response contract ('read the new path back from the response'). The only gap is that it delegates most parameter behavior to the schema, which is acceptable since the schema is thorough.

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?

Schema coverage is 59%, so the description partially compensates. It adds value by explaining the global partial-merge semantics that apply to every provided field, clarifying scriptMode's append/replace distinction, and unpacking the name-vs-filename independence beyond what the schema's bare descriptions state. The heavy per-parameter detail (auth, grpc, settings, websocket) is already richly documented in the schema itself, so the description need not repeat it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Update an existing Bruno request file with partial-merge semantics.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings: create_request (new files), read_request, delete_request, and move_request are all named different actions. The partial-merge framing immediately separates it from create_request's full-write behavior.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: it targets existing files ('Update an existing...') versus create_request, and explicitly names an alternative tool — 'Use remove_script to clear a script entirely' — when clearing is needed rather than replacing. It also explains when to choose append vs. replace via scriptMode. It doesn't enumerate exclusions against every sibling, but covers the key decision points for a modify tool.

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

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/Ostico/bruno-mcp-studio'

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