Remove an existing mock rule by host and rule ID, archiving its fixture to let matching requests pass through again.
Archive one rule (and its fixture); matching requests pass through again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Rule host: "*" (any routed host), a glob such as *.example.com, or a hostname. | |
| rule_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| host | Yes | ||
| next_step | Yes | ||
| archived_to | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the rule is archived (not deleted) and that its fixture is also archived, and that requests will pass through again. This is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires the rule to exist, or what happens to the fixture data.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and effect. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the core behavior and effect. However, with no annotations and a mutation-like operation, an agent would benefit from knowing whether archiving is reversible, whether the rule must exist, and how this differs from mock_rule_set_enabled. The description is adequate but not complete for safe invocation.
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 50%: the 'host' parameter has a description, but 'rule_id' does not. The description adds context that the rule is archived, but it does not explain how host and rule_id together identify the rule, nor does it clarify the format of rule_id. The description partially compensates but leaves the rule_id parameter under-specified.
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 states a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('one rule (and its fixture)'), and clearly explains the effect ('matching requests pass through again'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mock_remove and mock_rule_set_enabled, which have different semantics.
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?
The description implies when to use it: when you want to stop a rule from matching and let requests pass through. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like mock_rule_set_enabled (which likely disables without archiving) or mock_remove (which may delete permanently). The context is clear but exclusions are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.