list_rewrite_rulesRetrieve configured rewrite rules that modify live HTTP requests and responses without short-circuiting upstream calls.
List configured rewrite rules. Rewrites mutate live requests/responses (headers, body, status) without short-circuiting the upstream call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation with closed-world scope. The description adds valuable behavioral context: rewrite rules mutate live requests/responses (headers, body, status) without short-circuiting the upstream call. This clarifies the effect of the rules being listed, which is beyond the annotations and useful for understanding the domain.
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, front-loaded with purpose and then a crucial distinction. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains the nature of rewrite rules. No waste.
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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit return format details (e.g., what fields are returned), but since no output schema exists, the agent might benefit from knowing the shape of the list. However, for a simple list tool, the description is adequate. The omission of return structure is a minor gap.
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?
There are zero parameters, so per the rubric baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to discuss parameters because there are none, and it correctly omits parameter details. No additional semantic value is needed.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'List configured rewrite rules'. The description also clarifies what rewrite rules are and how they differ from mock rules by noting they mutate live traffic without short-circuiting. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_mock_rules and list_chaos_rules.
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?
Implies usage as a listing tool, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_mock_rules, list_chaos_rules) or any prerequisites/conditions. The description lacks 'when-to-use' guidance beyond the obvious list purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.