ironxyz

invoke-api-endpoint

Executes authenticated API calls to the Iron API using endpoint specifications from get-api-specs. Supports read-only mode.

Instructions

Make an actual API call to the Iron API. Use this ONLY after getting complete endpoint specifications with the get-api-specs MCP tool. This tool requires proper authentication and can be in read-only mode if configured.

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>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "invoke-api-endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	The API endpoint path — either a template (e.g., '/identifications/{id}') with path params in parameters, or an already-resolved path (e.g., '/identifications/abc123')
`method`	Yes	HTTP method
`parameters`	No	Path and query parameters as key-value pairs. Path parameters (e.g., {id}) are substituted into the path template; remaining parameters are appended as query string
`body`	No	Request body for POST/PUT/PATCH requests
`headers`	No	Additional headers as key-value pairs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Description adds context beyond annotations (authentication required, read-only mode) but does not disclose potential side effects or error handling, especially given openWorldHint annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage constraints. No wasted words.

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?

Explains parameter behavior clearly but lacks return value description (no output schema) and does not mention error states or rate limits. Still reasonably complete for a tool with rich schema.

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 100%, and description adds valuable semantics for path parameter (template vs resolved), method (enum), and parameters (path vs query substitution).

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?

Description clearly states 'Make an actual API call to the Iron API' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by requiring prior use of get-api-specs.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states 'Use this ONLY after getting complete endpoint specifications with the get-api-specs MCP tool', providing clear when-to-use guidance and referencing sibling tool.

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

Deploy Server