Clear all network mock rules applied to a specific tab using its target ID. Use this to reset network behavior and restore normal traffic without restarting the browser.
Remove all network mock rules for a tab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targetId | Yes | Target ID of the tab |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It states the destructive action but does not disclose side effects, such as whether it affects other tabs, if it also clears mock requests, or if the operation is reversible. The bare sentence does not provide the behavioral context an agent needs to anticipate consequences.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, containing no filler or unnecessary 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary action but omits expected side effects, return value, or error behavior. Given the simplicity, it is barely adequate but not fully complete—an agent would benefit from knowing if the operation is scoped solely to the specified tab or if any confirmation is involved.
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?
The schema description covers the only parameter ('targetId' as 'Target ID of the tab') at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so with high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('all network mock rules for a tab'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling network_remove_mock (which implies removing a specific rule) and network_list_mocks (listing). For a simple destructive action, this is precise and unambiguous.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of 'use network_remove_mock for a specific rule' or when clearing all mocks might be appropriate. The description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.