proxy_statusReturn whether the local MITM proxy is running, its bound port, TLS interception status, and buffered capture count.
Return whether the MITM proxy is running, which port it is bound to, whether TLS interception is configured, and how many captured entries are in the buffer.
| 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 safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this by framing the tool as a pure state readout with no mutation. It discloses what state is reported but adds nothing about freshness, whether values are cached, or any error conditions, so it stays at the baseline for an annotated read-only tool.
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 zero filler, front-loaded on the primary fact (whether the proxy is running) and then the secondary details. Every clause corresponds to a distinct returned field.
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 present, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by naming all four reported facts. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile and an empty input schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, unconditional call with nothing for the agent to supply or infer.
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 ('Return') and resource ('the MITM proxy') and enumerates exactly what state is reported: running state, bound port, TLS interception configuration, and buffer entry count. This clearly separates it from the other status-style sibling get_ca_status, which concerns certificate authority state rather than the live proxy process.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: it is evidently a pre-flight/health check before start_capture, stop_capture, or traffic inspection, but the description names no alternative and gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. Adequate for a no-argument status tool, but nothing is spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.