Saves an HTTP request as a replay item in Lemon's local runtime database so it can be executed later.
Saves a new HTTP replay item in Lemon's local runtime database. The item can later be executed with execute_replay_item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | HTTP or HTTPS request URL | |
| body | No | Optional UTF-8 request body | |
| name | Yes | Replay item name | |
| method | Yes | HTTP method | |
| headers | No | Request headers as a string map |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the item is stored in Lemon's local runtime database and can be executed later, but omits whether creation requires specific permissions, how duplicates are handled, or any mutation safety profile for a write operation.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The follow-up execution note is a useful second sentence that earns its place.
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?
The description covers the tool's basic purpose and follow-up action, and the schema fully documents the five parameters including the nested headers object. However, without annotations or an output schema, a mutation tool of this complexity would benefit from more context on permissions, failure behavior, or runtime prerequisites.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 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?
States a specific verb ('Saves/Create') and resource ('HTTP replay item') with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_replay_item and delete_replay_item via 'new', and names the follow-up tool execute_replay_item.
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?
Implies the item is created for later execution and names the executing sibling, giving useful workflow context. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as update_replay_item or execute_replay_request, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.