cloudflare-mcp

cf_request

Call any Cloudflare API v4 endpoint directly when no typed tool covers your need. Send authenticated GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, or DELETE requests to any path.

Instructions

Call ANY Cloudflare API v4 endpoint. Universal. path e.g. "/zones", "/zones/{id}/dns_records". Use for anything not covered below.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "cf_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`path`	Yes
`query`	No
`method`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails. It never discloses that this passthrough can issue DELETE/PUT/PATCH mutations, that auth/API-token requirements apply, how errors or pagination are surfaced, or that body/query are forwarded verbatim. The path-format examples are the only behavioral hint offered.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the universal scope and the routing rule. No filler, though at this brevity it omits content that would be valuable rather than trimming redundancy.

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 a 4-parameter universal API passthrough with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no information on authentication, request body/query encoding, destructive-method risk, or response shape — all of which matter for a tool that can hit any endpoint.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `path` format with two concrete examples ('/zones', '/zones/{id}/dns_records'), which adds real meaning, but `body`, `query`, and `method` get no explanation at all beyond the schema's bare enum.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Call ANY Cloudflare API v4 endpoint') and positions itself as the universal escape hatch relative to the specific siblings ('anything not covered below'). Clear what it does, though the sibling differentiation relies on an out-of-band list rather than naming tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use for anything not covered below' is an explicit fallback rule that routes the agent away from this tool when a specific sibling (cf_dns_create, cf_purge_cache, etc.) applies. It stops short of guidance on method choice or prerequisites, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server