Remove a network mock rule by its ID to stop intercepting requests for a specified tab. Provide targetId and mockId to cancel the mock.
Remove a network mock rule by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mockId | Yes | Mock rule ID to remove | |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Remove', implying a destructive action, but does not state whether the removal is permanent, whether it affects active network requests that matched the rule, or what side effects might occur. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it is almost too terse—while concise, it omits useful context about the tool's effect and alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 two-parameter removal tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of what happens after removal, how it relates to network recording, or that network_clear_mocks exists for bulk removal. This incompleteness makes the tool description only partially sufficient for correct invocation in the full context of sibling tools.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, already documenting both 'targetId' and 'mockId' clearly. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the generic 'by ID' phrase. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
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 specific action (remove), the resource (network mock rule), and the selection mechanism (by ID). It distinguishes this from siblings like network_clear_mocks (which removes all) and network_add_mock (which creates), so an agent can immediately understand the tool's role.
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 versus alternatives. The description does not explicitly differentiate removing a single mock rule from clearing all mocks (network_clear_mocks), nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description, which is risky given the existence of network_clear_mocks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.