Remove every conditional rule of a route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Subdomain of the mock, e.g. "brisk-otter" | |
| route | Yes | Route identifier, lowercase method: "get:/users/{id}" | |
| ownerToken | No | Owner token received at creation (not needed when the account is connected with an API token) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Every' hints at bulk deletion, but the description never states that the action is irreversible, whether it errors when no rules exist, whether the route itself is preserved, or that ownerToken may be required for authorization.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and the scope arrive immediately. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the caveats a destructive tool needs.
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 destructive, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description should say what survives the call, what happens on an empty rule set, and whether the ownerToken is required. None of that is present, leaving a meaningful gap for a deletion operation.
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 100%, with slug, route, and ownerToken all documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only that 'route' scopes the operation to a single route's rules, which is marginal but consistent with the schema.
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 gives a specific verb ('Remove') plus resource ('every conditional rule of a route'), making the bulk-delete semantics explicit via 'every'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_rule, but never names a sibling or clarifies the boundary with clear_requests or delete_mock.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered beyond the bare action. The agent is left to infer that this is the counterpart to add_rule and that clear_requests (a sibling) affects a different resource entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.