Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gud API MCP Server

Gud API MCP Server

Official
by gudlab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

upsert_request

Create or update an API request in a named collection, which is created if missing. Optionally organize requests under a folder path created as needed.

Instructions

Create or update a request inside a collection (matched by name). The collection is created if it doesn't exist. Optionally nest it under a folder path.

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": {
      "collection": "<collection>",
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "upsert_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes
collectionYesCollection name or id. Created if missing.
folderPathNoFolder path, e.g. ["Auth","JWT"]. Created as needed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: collection creation if missing and folder path creation as needed. However, it does not clarify the exact update semantics (e.g., full replacement vs. merge) or mention any destructive side effects.

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, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by optional feature. No redundant 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?

For a complex tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers high-level behavior but omits upsert conflict resolution and return value details. Adequate but incomplete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% (some parameter descriptions exist). The description adds meaning by linking 'matched by name' to the request.name parameter and explaining folderPath as optional nesting. Nested request object details are left to the schema.

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 'create or update a request inside a collection (matched by name)', distinguishing it from siblings like create_collection (collection-only) and send_request (execution-only). It specifies the match key and optional folder nesting.

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 implies usage for upserting requests but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives. For example, it does not mention that create_collection should be used to create a collection alone, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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