Skip to main content
Glama

api_probe

Send multiple HTTP methods to a target URL, analyze response status, content-type, and CORS configuration. Supports custom headers and body for API security testing and endpoint discovery.

Instructions

API endpoint prober: sends multiple HTTP methods (GET/POST/PUT/DELETE/PATCH/OPTIONS) to the target URL, analyzes response status, content-type, and CORS configuration. Supports custom headers and body, suitable for API security testing and endpoint discovery.

中文详情:

  • 用途:API 端点探测工具,向目标 URL 发送多种 HTTP 方法,分析响应状态、内容类型和 CORS 配置,支持自定义请求头和请求体

  • 何时使用:API 安全测试时探测允许的方法;CORS 配置验证时;端点发现/枚举时;OPTIONS 预检请求行为验证时

  • 输出:{ ok: boolean, url: string, results: array, corsAnalysis: object } — results 每项含 { method, status, contentType, contentLength, allowed }; corsAnalysis 含 { enabled, allowedOrigins, allowCredentials }

  • 参数:

    • url (string, 必填):目标 API URL

    • methods (array, 可选):要测试的 HTTP 方法列表,默认 ["GET","POST","PUT","DELETE","PATCH","OPTIONS"]

    • headers (object, 可选):自定义请求头,如 {"Authorization":"Bearer token","Content-Type":"application/json"}

    • body (string, 可选):请求体(POST/PUT/PATCH 方法使用)

    • checkCors (boolean, 可选):是否分析 CORS 配置,默认 true

  • 错误:URL 不可达抛出 'Request failed';methods 为空数组使用默认方法列表

  • 示例:{"url":"https://api.example.com/users","methods":["GET","POST","OPTIONS"],"headers":{"Authorization":"Bearer token"},"checkCors":true}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes目标 API URL(必填)
bodyNo请求体(POST/PUT/PATCH 方法使用)
headersNo自定义请求头,如 {"Authorization": "Bearer token", "Content-Type": "application/json"}
methodsNo要测试的 HTTP 方法列表,默认 ['GET', 'POST', 'PUT', 'DELETE', 'PATCH', 'OPTIONS']
checkCorsNo是否分析 CORS 配置,默认 true
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's actions (sending methods, analyzing responses, CORS analysis) and error behavior ('Request failed' on unreachable URLs). Safety implications (non-destructive) are implied but not explicitly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with sections (purpose, details, output, params, errors, example) and includes both English and Chinese, which may be redundant but not detrimental. It is somewhat verbose but every section adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and a complex return object, the description fully explains the output structure (results array, corsAnalysis object), error cases, and provides a concrete example. It is complete for an agent to understand invocation and expected results.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: default for methods, example header format, body usage notes, and checkCors default. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as an API endpoint prober that sends multiple HTTP methods and analyzes response status, content-type, and CORS configuration. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., security_scan, security_headers_check) by focusing on method probing and CORS verification.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit usage contexts: API security testing, CORS configuration validation, endpoint discovery/enumeration, and OPTIONS preflight behavior verification. However, it does not discuss when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives among siblings.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/validpilot/ai-verify-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server