Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LemonMCP

LemonMCP

Official
by lemonXGroup
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

clear_rewrite_debug_events

Clears structured rewrite-debug events. Provide a trace_id to clear one request, or omit it to clear the whole debug projection intentionally.

Instructions

Clears structured rewrite-debug events. Provide trace_id to clear only one request; omit it only when intentionally clearing the whole debug projection.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "clear_rewrite_debug_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
trace_idNoOptional HTTP trace id. When omitted, all rewrite-debug events are cleared.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it correctly discloses the scope-of-destruction behavior (full projection cleared when trace_id is omitted), which is the highest-value trait for a clear tool. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or confirmation requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the destructive-scope warning front-loaded before the optional parameter nuance. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-optional-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential scoping risk. It falls slightly short of complete by omitting whether the clear is recoverable and whether any confirmation/permission is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and already documents trace_id and its omission semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the omission consequence with an intent caveat but adds no new syntax or format detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Clears structured rewrite-debug events'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling read tool get_rewrite_debug_events. An agent can pick it out without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent when to pass trace_id (single-request clear) versus when to omit it (whole debug projection), and frames the omit case with 'only when intentionally', which is real guidance rather than restating the schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools