Execute a deployed WebCake storefront HTTP function by name and method, passing parameters to retrieve or modify storefront data.
Run a deployed HTTP function. function_name excludes method prefix. Example: "get_Products" → function_name="Products", method="GET"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | HTTP method | POST |
| params | No | Parameters | |
| function_name | Yes | Function name without method prefix (e.g. 'Products') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals this is a mutating operation, and the description adds nothing about side effects, whether POST/PUT/PATCH calls mutate data, auth requirements, or error behavior. For an execution tool that can perform writes, this leaves significant behavioral gaps beyond what the annotation provides.
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 tight sentences with the action stated first and the naming convention immediately after. The example earns its place by disambiguating the required format; nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description ideally should hint at what running a function returns, but it does not. It also omits the method default (POST) and any error/response context, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete for an execution tool.
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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by giving a concrete mapping example ("get_Products" → function_name="Products", method="GET") that clarifies how the method prefix must be stripped from function_name. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse property descriptions.
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 and resource ("Run a deployed HTTP function"), which is clearly an execution action distinct from the sibling edit/update/get HTTP function tools. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the boundary between running vs. modifying, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose; there is no explicit guidance on when to run vs. inspect (get_http_function), debug (debug_function), or edit a function. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.