clear_mocksRemoves one mock by ID or all mocks when no ID is provided, then returns active mocks and their hit counts.
Remove one mock by id, or all mocks when no id is given. Returns the mocks still active and their hit counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Mock id returned by mock_route, e.g. "mock-1" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the critical behavioral detail that omitting the id removes ALL mocks, plus what the call returns. It stops short of warning that removal is irreversible or that active mocks will start hitting the real network again.
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?
Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first covers operation and its branching behavior, the second covers the return value. Zero padding and the destructive default is front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return value (remaining mocks and hit counts). For a one-parameter tool this is nearly complete; only irreversibility and post-clear effects are unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter already documents the mock id format, so baseline is 3. The description still adds value by explaining the semantic of omitting the optional id entirely (clear all), which the schema does not convey.
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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (mock), and precisely distinguishes the two modes: single mock by id vs. all mocks when no id is given. It does not explicitly name the sibling mock_route as its complement, but the operation itself is 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?
The with-id vs. no-id conditional gives clear invocation semantics, and cleanup after mocking is implied. However, it never states when cleanup is warranted, that the no-id form is a broad wipe, or how it relates to mock_route beyond the schema's reference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.