Send a bounded HTTP request only to configured local hosts for testing local APIs or dev servers. Redirects are not followed, so requests stay within allowed destinations.
Make a bounded HTTP request only to configured local hosts. Redirects are not followed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| body | No | ||
| agent | No | Optional existing runtime binding for monitor attribution; no extra handshake. | |
| method | No | GET | |
| headers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is carried structurally. The description usefully adds two behavioral facts the annotations do not cover: host restriction and that redirects are not followed. It says nothing about timeouts, response size limits, or what 'bounded' actually constrains.
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, front-loaded with the scope constraint and the redirect caveat, with no filler. Appropriate size for the content given, though the brevity leaves gaps rather than being genuinely tight.
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?
For a five-parameter, open-world HTTP tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains how a caller discovers the 'configured local hosts', what the 'bounded' limits are, or what failures look like. Annotations cover safety but not calling mechanics.
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 only 20% (just the nested 'agent' object), and the description adds no meaning for url, body, method, or headers. With five parameters and a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but does not — e.g. no note that method defaults to GET or how headers/body interact.
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 states a specific verb and resource (make an HTTP request) and scopes it to 'configured local hosts', which clearly separates it from the fs_*, git_*, and process_* siblings. It is not tautological, though 'bounded' is left unexplained.
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?
It gives a hard precondition ('only to configured local hosts') but never says when to reach for this tool versus command_run or agent_message, nor what to do when a host is not configured. Usage is only loosely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.