Universal MCP Bridge & Proxy

exec_curl

Execute curl commands to send HTTP requests, download files, and interact with web APIs through the MCP bridge, enabling command-line web access and testing.

Instructions

Executes 'curl'. Help summary: Usage: curl [options...] -d, --data HTTP POST data -f, --fail Fail fast with no output on HTTP errors -h, --help Get help for commands -o, --output Write to file instead of stdout -O, --remote-name Write output to...

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": {
      "kwargs": "<kwargs>"
    },
    "name": "exec_curl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kwargs`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies network access and arbitrary command execution but does not state side effects, security implications, rate limits, file writing risks, or what the response looks like beyond the truncated help text.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a truncated help dump that ends mid-sentence with 'Write output to...', which is poorly structured and incomplete. Useful information about the tool is buried in generic option listings.

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?

For an arbitrary command execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is missing critical details about input format, safety, permissions, and output behavior. The help snippet is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an undescribed 'kwargs' string. The description shows generic curl syntax but does not explain that 'kwargs' should contain curl arguments or how to format them, leaving significant ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Executes curl', which gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not clarify scope, safety, or output, and the help summary is generic curl usage rather than a task-specific explanation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites such as network access, authentication, or safety considerations. The curl help text lists options but does not provide tool-selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server