Send raw HTTP requests to the Edupage server using the active session. Specify method, URL, optional data, headers, and subdomain to retrieve status codes and response body text.
Send a raw request to the Edupage server using the active session. method: 'GET'|'POST'. Returns status code and body text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| method | Yes | ||
| headers | No | {} | |
| subdomain | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'active session' and returns status code and body, but doesn't disclose that this is an advanced tool that can modify data (since it allows POST), potential security risks, or that it depends on prior login. The mention of 'active session' is some context, but insufficient for a raw request tool.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It provides method guidance but still leaves gaps. Overall, it's efficient with two sentences, though the second sentence could be integrated. It's not overly verbose.
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 tool's complexity (5 params, raw request, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. An agent needs to know how to construct the url, what the subdomain parameter does, and given the many sibling getters, when to use this. The description only partially fulfills that.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'method: 'GET'|'POST'' which adds clarity to the method parameter, and implicitly that data and headers might be used for POST, but doesn't explain the subdomain parameter, which is non-trivial and defaults to null. It doesn't clarify the url format or the data/headers string formats.
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 tool sends a raw request to the Edupage server and returns status code and body text, which is specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, though siblings are mostly specific getters and this is the raw request tool, so differentiation is implicit.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says 'send a raw request' but doesn't explain when an agent should prefer this over the many specialized getter tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites like being logged in (though 'active session' is mentioned, it doesn't say login is required).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.