toggle_rewrite_ruleEnable or disable a rewrite rule by ID, or omit the enabled flag to flip its current state. Manage proxy rewrite behavior without manual edits.
Enable or disable a rewrite rule by id. Omit enabled to flip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| enabled | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds the default-flip behavior when 'enabled' is omitted, which is genuinely useful beyond annotations, but it doesn't disclose persistence, permission requirements, or the rule of what state results from a flip.
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 short sentences that front-load the core action and end with the key default-behavior detail. No wasted words.
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 simple two-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the omitted-parameter default. It leaves gaps around the meaning of the 'id' parameter and any return value or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage, it is adequate rather than deficient.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the semantics of 'enabled' (omitting it flips the current value), which is helpful, but leaves the 'id' parameter (required, number) entirely unexplained beyond its name. This partially compensates but falls short of full coverage.
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?
Names a specific verb (enable/disable, i.e., toggle) and resource (rewrite rule) plus the identifier used to select it. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like toggle_chaos_rule and toggle_mock_rule by naming the rewrite-rule resource.
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 implies usage via the 'Omit enabled to flip' clause, which effectively describes the two operating modes. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus update_rewrite_rule (which could also change enabled), and no prerequisites or alternative selection logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.