Send HTTP PUT requests to update resources by specifying a URL and data payload. This tool enables modifying web content through browser automation.
Perform an HTTP PUT request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to perform PUT operation | |
| value | Yes | Data to PUT in the body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'Perform an HTTP PUT request', it doesn't describe what this entails—whether it requires authentication, has side effects (mutations), handles errors, or returns specific response data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Perform an HTTP PUT request') with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an HTTP PUT operation (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, authentication needs, or typical use cases. For a tool that likely modifies server-side resources, more context is needed to guide safe and effective usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('url' and 'value'). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Perform an HTTP PUT request'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'playwright_patch' or 'playwright_post', which are also HTTP methods. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_patch' or 'playwright_post'. There's no mention of typical use cases for PUT requests (e.g., updating resources) or prerequisites. It's a generic statement with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.