clear_bin
Delete all captured requests from a bin (the bin stays usable). Requires the bin token.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | The bin token. | |
| bin_id | Yes | The bin id. |
Delete all captured requests from a bin (the bin stays usable). Requires the bin token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | The bin token. | |
| bin_id | Yes | The bin id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 bin stays usable and requires a token, but lacks details on irreversibility, authorization beyond token, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.
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 simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and an important behavioral trait. Minor omission of whether the action is reversible.
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 both parameters already described succinctly in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the action (delete all captured requests), the resource (a bin), and the effect (the bin stays usable). It distinguishes from sibling tools create_bin and get_requests.
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?
Description implies usage for clearing requests but does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives. No explicit guidance on context or exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation on bins: create, read requests, and clear requests. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase underscores (clear_bin, create_bin, get_requests).
Three tools cover the essential operations for a capture bin service perfectly without unnecessary extras.
Core operations (create, read, clear) are present, but missing a bin deletion tool is a minor gap that agents can work around by creating a new bin.