api_testValidate API endpoints by sending HTTP requests with custom methods, headers, and timeouts, then checking responses against an expected status code.
Test API endpoint with validation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | API endpoint URL | |
| method | No | HTTP method | GET |
| headers | No | HTTP headers | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| expected_status | No | Expected HTTP status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies that a real HTTP request is made, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, timeout behavior, or what 'validation' means in practice.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a five-parameter HTTP testing tool.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description should clarify request behavior, validation semantics, and usage boundaries. It leaves all of these implicit.
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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for a score of 3.
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 verb and resource: testing an API endpoint. However, 'with validation' is vague and does not clarify what is validated, nor does it distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like curl_request or httpie_request.
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 curl_request, httpie_request, or health. It also omits prerequisites such as authentication, network access, or safe-use considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.