curl_requestSend HTTP requests with custom methods, headers, and bodies to test endpoints, retrieve web data, or verify network service responses.
Execute HTTP request using curl
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target URL | |
| data | No | Request body | |
| method | No | HTTP method | GET |
| headers | No | HTTP headers | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds |
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 carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether requests can mutate remote state via POST/PUT, not whether redirects are followed, not whether auth or TLS verification is handled, and not what the response looks like. For an arbitrary outbound HTTP executor this is a serious gap.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient, though it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise in a useful way.
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 and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what the tool returns (raw body, status, headers) and what a timeout or error looks like. None of that is present, leaving a critical gap for a tool whose callers must parse the result.
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 coverage is 100%, so url, data, method, headers, and timeout are all already documented with types and defaults. The description adds no additional semantics (e.g., how data is encoded or whether headers merge with defaults), so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Execute HTTP request using curl'), which is understandable, but it gives no differentiation from the near-identical sibling httpie_request, nor from api_test. An agent choosing between generic HTTP clients gets nothing to disambiguate on.
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 about when to use this versus httpie_request or api_test, and no mention of prerequisites such as credentials or network reachability. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.