Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-public-apis

mcp-public-apis

by josephsenior
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

probe_api

Probe an API endpoint by making a live HTTP GET request to check its response status, data shape, and latency.

Instructions

Makes a safe live HTTP GET request to a given API endpoint and returns the response status, shape, and latency.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "probe_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe API endpoint URL to probe
apiKeyNoOptional API key to include
apiKeyParamNoQuery parameter name for the API key (default: "api_key")
timeoutMsNoRequest timeout in ms (default: 5000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. While it mentions 'safe' and outputs, it lacks details on error handling, redirects, authentication handling, or rate limits. 'Safe' is vague without elaboration.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with key verb and resource, no wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error cases, and behavior. It only hints at output with 'status, shape, latency' but lacks detail.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool performs a safe live HTTP GET request to an API endpoint and returns status, shape, and latency, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_apis or search_apis.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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