vcf-ops-mpb-mcp

Run one HTTP request

mpb_run_request

Read-only

Runs a single design request against the target through MPB and returns the response plus attributes MPB found; use the request object from mpb_get_item.

Instructions

Runs one design request against the target through MPB (REQUEST job) and returns the response and attributes MPB found. Pass the request object from mpb_get_item.

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": {
      "designId": "<designId>",
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "mpb_run_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes
`designId`	Yes	MPB design UUID (see mpb_list_designs)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this executes as a REQUEST job and reports back the response and matched attributes, but it is silent on the tension an agent would care about: an outbound HTTP request to a target may itself mutate the remote system, and nothing here says whether that is possible or how failures/timeouts surface.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the action and return are front-loaded and the input-provenance instruction follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by naming what comes back (the response and the attributes MPB found). Given only two parameters, one of which is a nested free-form object sourced elsewhere, this is close to sufficient; only the remote-side-effect question remains unaddressed.

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 only 50%: designId is documented in the schema, but the free-form 'request' object is completely opaque there. The description compensates by stating exactly where that object should come from (mpb_get_item), which is real meaning the schema does not provide.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it runs one design request against the target via MPB as a REQUEST job and returns the response plus discovered attributes. That is materially clearer than the title alone, though it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, mpb_api_call, so an agent must infer which one to reach for.

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?

It gives a concrete pre-condition workflow hint — 'Pass the request object from mpb_get_item' — which tells the agent where the input comes from. It offers no when-not guidance, no prerequisites such as connection or design status, and no alternative named for cases where a raw API call is more appropriate.

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