MCP-Insomnia

generate_code_snippet

Generate a code snippet for an API request in your chosen language or framework, specifying target and optional client for ready-to-use integration.

Instructions

Generate a code snippet for a request in various languages/frameworks

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": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "generate_code_snippet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`client`	No	Optional: specify a client for the target language (e.g., "axios" for javascript, "curl" for shell)
`target`	Yes	Target language for the snippet (e.g., "javascript", "python", "shell")
`requestId`	Yes	ID of the request to generate snippet for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.2May 15, 2026
Removedv0.3.0May 1, 2026
First observedv0.4.0Jan 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (generate) without detailing side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling. A generative tool should clarify whether it modifies state, but it does not.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly explains the tool's purpose. While efficient, it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the return format or behavior, but it does not. It omits details like whether the snippet is returned as a string, how errors are handled, or if the operation affects the server state.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter purposes. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool generates a code snippet for a request, specifying the scope as various languages/frameworks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute_request or get_request by focusing on code generation rather than execution or retrieval.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to generate a snippet versus executing a request or importing from a different format. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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