mitm_clear_rulesClear active interception rules by family (map_remote, map_local, modify_headers, modify_body) or all at once to reset traffic modification state.
Clear active rules. Pass rule_type to clear one family, or omit it to clear all four.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| remaining | No | ||
| cleared_count | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does convey the core destructive behavior and the scope granularity. However, it does not state irreversibility, whether clearing is scoped to a session_id, or any effect on active proxy traffic, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Every word earns its place: one sentence states the action and one sentence states the branching behavior. At roughly 18 words, it is optimally sized and 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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values do not need explanation. Still, the description omits session_id semantics and any caution about the destructive nature of clearing, so completeness is only middling for a mutation tool with no annotations.
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 description adds useful meaning to rule_type by clarifying that omission clears all four, which helps mitigate the schema's confusing 'rule_type=all' note. But the required session_id is never described in the description or schema, leaving the agent to infer which session's rules are being cleared.
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 exactly what the tool does ('Clear active rules') and gives two operation modes: clearing one family by rule_type or clearing all four by omission. This is a specific verb+resource and is distinct from sibling tools like mitm_list_rules and the mitm_set_* tools.
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 clear usage direction: pass rule_type to clear one family, or omit it to clear all four. It does not name alternative tools, but none of the siblings perform clearing, so the usage context is reasonably complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.