wp_criu

bridge_raw_request

Sends raw HTTP requests to any bridge endpoint, covering untyped cases not handled by other tools. Specify method, endpoint, and optional body for custom integrations.

Instructions

Hace una llamada raw a un endpoint del bridge para cubrir casos no tipados.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "endpoint": "<endpoint>"
    },
    "name": "bridge_raw_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	site_id, site_label o base_url del sitio.
`method`	No		GET
`endpoint`	Yes	Endpoint del bridge comenzando con /.
`body_json`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'makes a raw call' but does not warn about potential dangers, side effects, or required permissions for this potentially destructive operation.

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 sentence, very concise. It front-loads the purpose, but could be slightly more structured.

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, annotations, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for a tool that makes raw API calls. It omits return values, error handling, and prerequisites.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50% (two of four parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 makes a raw call to a bridge endpoint for untyped cases. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like rest_proxy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'para cubrir casos no tipados' implies usage for untyped cases, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or mention of alternatives.

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

Deploy Server