Get all requests the mock bridge has received, in order, to assert what a client under test actually sent.
Return every request the mock bridge has received so far, in order -- for asserting what a client under test actually sent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the read-only, stateful nature of the tool (returns all requests accumulated 'so far', in arrival order), which lets an agent infer it has no mutation side effects. It does not describe the exact return shape, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 sentence with no wasted words. The action ('Return'), scope ('every request... so far, in order'), and rationale ('for asserting...') are all front-loaded and each clause earns its place.
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 zero-parameter tool, this is nearly complete: an agent can invoke it immediately and understand what it returns and why. The only gap is the absence of an output schema to specify the response format, which keeps this just short of a 5.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail, and none is needed for correct invocation.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the exact resource ('every request the mock bridge has received'), and adds scope ('so far, in order') plus a stated purpose (asserting what a client actually sent). It is clearly distinct from the mutating siblings like start_mock_bridge, queue_response, set_default_response, and clear_received_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?
The description gives an explicit context: invoke this tool when you need to assert what a client under test actually sent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., using clear_received_requests to reset the history first), but the context is clear enough to guide correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.