Wawp MCP Server

execute_request

Execute raw HTTP requests to the Wawp API for testing endpoints. Specify method, path, body, and query parameters to validate API behavior directly.

Instructions

Execute a raw request to the Wawp API. Useful for quick tests.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "execute_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`path`	Yes
`method`	Yes
`params`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. It only states 'execute' without explaining what happens on success/failure or whether the request is actually sent.

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 a single sentence and efficient in length, but it under-specifies crucial details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks structural elements like parameter guidance or usage notes, making it minimally acceptable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no information for an agent to correctly select and invoke it. It fails to cover the required context for successful utilization.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (path, method, body, params). It doesn't explain how to format the raw request, what each parameter controls, or how they relate. The method enum is the only hint, which is already in the schema.

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 executes a raw request to the Wawp API, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like send_local_file or list_endpoints by focusing on raw API requests, though it doesn't explicitly name the distinction.

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?

It says 'useful for quick tests' but provides no guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is minimal usage context without alternatives.

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

Deploy Server