Retrieve all proxy rules in evaluation order and identify which ones you own, so you can edit only the rules assigned to you.
All rules in evaluation order. You may only change rules whose owner is you (see get_status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's burden is lower. It adds that all rules are returned in evaluation order and references ownership constraints, but it does not explain the surprising destructiveHint=true for a list operation or describe return/pagination behavior.
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?
The description is only two short sentences and leads with the key scope and ordering information. However, the second sentence is about changing rules rather than listing them, so it does not fully earn its place for this tool.
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 zero-parameter, low-complexity list tool with no output schema, the description gives only a minimal scope and ordering statement. It is adequate for invocation, but it leaves return shape, filtering behavior, and pagination unstated.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics requiring explanation in the description. The schema is empty and fully consistent with the absence of parameter guidance.
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 phrase "All rules in evaluation order" identifies the resource and ordering, but it does not use an explicit verb such as "list," so the agent must infer the operation from the tool name. The second sentence about changing rules is about mutation behavior rather than the listing purpose.
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 does not say when to use list_rules versus alternatives such as get_status or get_request, nor does it state any usage conditions or exclusions. The note about only changing rules you own is guidance for mutation tools, not for selecting this listing operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.