Gud API MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

send_request

Execute API requests with variable resolution and automated assertions, returning status, timing, headers, and truncated body.

Instructions

Execute a request and return status, timing, headers, and a (truncated) body. Resolves {{variables}} from the active environment and the request's collection. Optionally capture the response as a saved example.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "send_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`request`	No	Inline request definition (alternative to collection+requestName).
`collection`	No	Collection name/id when sending a saved request.
`requestName`	No	Saved request name or id within the collection.
`saveExample`	No	When set, capture the response as an example on the saved request. Pass a string to label it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that responses are truncated, variables are resolved, and examples can be saved. It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but covers the core behaviors well.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load key information (execute request, return details). No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested request object, multiple optional parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose but omits details on using the 'tests' field and how to construct the request object for inline sending.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about variable resolution and example saving, but doesn't elaborate on how to choose between inline request object and collection+requestName parameters.

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 executes a request and returns status, timing, headers, and a truncated body. It also mentions variable resolution and optional example saving, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_collections or upsert_request.

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 description implicitly indicates this tool is for sending HTTP requests, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use inline requests vs saved requests, or when not to use it. No mention of alternatives among siblings.

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

Deploy Server