Skip to main content
Glama
gpact

bruno-mcp

by gpact
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get Bruno request

bruno_get_request

Fetch a Bruno request from a collection to inspect its definition, check revision changes, or retrieve full parsed content including raw YAML source.

Instructions

Read a Bruno request. Use responseMode=revision for revision check, or full for parsed content.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesRequest path relative to collection root (e.g. Users/Create.yml).
collectionYesCollection path relative to workspace root (as returned by bruno_list_collections).
responseModeNoDetail level: "full" for document and metadata, or "revision" for revision check only.
includeSourceNoInclude raw YAML source in full mode.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / collection / description
      Previous value: -"Collection identifier: the collection's path relative to the workspace root (as returned by bruno_list_collections), not its display name. It may be nested, for example collections/hotel."New value: +"Collection path relative to workspace root (as returned by bruno_list_collections)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / includeSource / description
      Previous value: -"When true, also return the raw request source text alongside the parsed document. Defaults to false."New value: +"Include raw YAML source in full mode."
    • changedInput schema / properties / request / description
      Previous value: -"Request path relative to the collection root (as returned by bruno_list_requests), for example Hotel/Search.yml."New value: +"Request path relative to collection root (e.g. Users/Create.yml)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / responseMode
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Detail level: \"full\" for document and metadata, or \"revision\" for revision check only.",
+  "enum": [
+    "full",
+    "revision"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is a read and that 'full' returns parsed content while 'revision' performs a revision check, which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not describe the exact response shape, error behavior, or explicitly confirm that no side effects occur.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and mode guidance immediately following. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The schema covers parameter semantics well, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should more clearly explain return behavior and how this tool relates to sibling tools. It sketches the difference between revision and full modes but leaves the exact response and tool-selection context to inference. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

All four parameters already have descriptive comments in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mode sentence mostly restates the responseMode schema, though 'parsed content' adds a small nuance. It adds no meaningful detail for collection, request, or includeSource beyond the schema.

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 operation: 'Read a Bruno request.' The mention of responseMode further clarifies that the tool supports both full content retrieval and revision checks, which is specific and useful. It is distinguishable from create/update/run siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with list/search tools.

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 guidance for choosing between responseMode values, but it says nothing about when to use this tool instead of bruno_list_requests, bruno_search_requests, or bruno_run. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned, so an agent must infer the tool's appropriate context from its name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools