Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bruno MCP Server

Bruno MCP Server

by jcr82
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

bruno_run_request

Execute a specific API request from a Bruno collection, with options for environment variables, validation, and test reports.

Instructions

Run a specific request from a Bruno collection

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": {
      "collectionPath": "<collectionPath>",
      "requestName": "<requestName>"
    },
    "name": "bruno_run_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
collectionPathYesPath to the Bruno collection
requestNameYesName of the request to run
environmentNoName or path of the environment to use
enviromentNoAlias for environment (to handle common typo)
envVariablesNoEnvironment variables as key-value pairs
reporterJsonNoPath to write JSON report
reporterJunitNoPath to write JUnit XML report
reporterHtmlNoPath to write HTML report
dryRunNoValidate request without executing HTTP call

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / dryRun / description
      Previous value: -"Validate request configuration without executing HTTP call (optional)"New value: +"Validate request without executing HTTP call"
    • changedInput schema / properties / envVariables / description
      Previous value: -"Environment variables as key-value pairs (optional)"New value: +"Environment variables as key-value pairs"
    • addedInput schema / properties / enviroment
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for environment (to handle common typo)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / environment / description
      Previous value: -"Name or path of the environment to use (optional)"New value: +"Name or path of the environment to use"
    • changedInput schema / properties / reporterHtml / description
      Previous value: -"Path to write HTML report (optional)"New value: +"Path to write HTML report"
    • changedInput schema / properties / reporterJson / description
      Previous value: -"Path to write JSON report (optional)"New value: +"Path to write JSON report"
    • changedInput schema / properties / reporterJunit / description
      Previous value: -"Path to write JUnit XML report for CI/CD integration (optional)"New value: +"Path to write JUnit XML report"
  2. First observed

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 burden but only states 'Run a specific request'. It does not disclose that dryRun validates without executing, nor any side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. The description is too minimal to be transparent.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It could benefit from additional structure (e.g., listing key options), but it is not verbose.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, the dry-run capability, or how it differs from bruno_run_collection. Missing critical completeness context.

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% with descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Path to the Bruno collection'). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Run a specific request from a Bruno collection' uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bruno_run_collection (which runs an entire collection) and bruno_list_requests (which lists, not executes).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., bruno_run_collection). No prerequisites or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and input schema alone.

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