netdiag-mcp

http_get

Fetch a URL and return its text, JSON, or XML response body for reading endpoints or inspecting error pages. Use for content retrieval, not status or latency checks.

Instructions

GET a URL and return the response body (text/JSON/XML only, capped at max_bytes, hard cap 1 MiB).

Use this to read a JSON endpoint or inspect an error page. For status/latency only, use http_check instead.

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": "http_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`timeout`	No
`max_bytes`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.6.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the accepted content types (text/JSON/XML only), the byte cap behavior, and a hard cap of 1 MiB, which are real limits an agent must know. It omits redirect handling, auth requirements, and non-2xx behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and limits, ending with the routing hint. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers content types and size limits well. The remaining gap is the undocumented timeout parameter, which matters for an agent tuning request behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains max_bytes semantics (capped output, 1 MiB hard cap) but says nothing about the url format or the timeout unit/behavior, leaving two of three params undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (GET) and resource (URL) and specifies what is returned (response body). It also names the sibling http_check and the scope it does not cover (status/latency only), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use it (read a JSON endpoint, inspect an error page) and names the alternative (http_check) with the condition that selects it (status/latency only). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server