Skip to main content
Glama
gpact

bruno-mcp

by gpact
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List Bruno requests

bruno_list_requests

List and search API requests in a Bruno collection by name, path, URL, HTTP method, or request type, with returned request paths, names, and HTTP metadata.

Instructions

List and search requests in a Bruno collection. Returns request paths, names, types, and HTTP metadata.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoFilter by request type (e.g. http or graphql).
queryNoCase-insensitive substring filter for request name, path, and URL.
methodNoFilter by HTTP method (e.g. GET or POST).
collectionYesCollection path relative to workspace root (as returned by bruno_list_collections).

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 / method / description
      Previous value: -"Filter to requests with this HTTP method (case-insensitive), for example GET or POST."New value: +"Filter by HTTP method (e.g. GET or POST)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"Case-insensitive substring filter matched against each request's name, path, and URL."New value: +"Case-insensitive substring filter for request name, path, and URL."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Filter to requests of this type (case-insensitive), for example http or graphql."New value: +"Filter by request type (e.g. http or graphql)."
  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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the tool returns request paths, names, types, and HTTP metadata, but it does not mention error behavior, pagination, or whether the operation is strictly read-only. The read-only nature is implied by 'list and search' but not explicit.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action and return contents in two short sentences with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaningful information.

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 description covers the main inputs and return fields, but with no output schema and no annotations, it is only minimally complete. The lack of any distinction from bruno_search_requests is a notable gap for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond confirming the collection context, which the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: listing and searching requests in a Bruno collection, and it lists what is returned. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool bruno_search_requests, whose name suggests overlapping search functionality.

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 about when to use this tool instead of bruno_search_requests or bruno_get_request. The description implies it is for exploring requests but never states exclusions or alternative selection criteria, leaving the agent to guess.

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