Skip to main content
Glama

Route Remove

route_remove

Remove a specific routing rule or clear all rules from a tab without disabling the Fetch domain. Use it to clean up intercepted routes after debugging or testing.

Instructions

Remove one rule (rule_id) or all rules (all=True). Doesn't disable Fetch domain.

Ex: route_remove('t0', 'r2') → {"removed":"r2","active_routes":3} Ex: route_remove('t0', all=True) → {"cleared":5,"active_routes":0}

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tab_id": "<tab_id>"
    },
    "name": "route_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNo
tab_idYes
rule_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this does not disable the Fetch domain and shows the shape of results, but it omits whether removal is immediate, idempotent, or requires the routes to exist. The example return values are helpful but largely duplicate the output schema.

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 compact sentences plus two examples. The primary behavior is front-loaded and every line contributes to understanding how to call the tool.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers the two clear modes of operation and a key non-behavior. It could say more about tab_id and edge cases, but the output schema removes the need to explain return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains rule_id and all=True semantics reasonably well and shows tab_id in examples, but does not clarify tab_id requirements, mutual exclusivity of rule_id/all, or what happens if rule_id is invalid.

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: remove one route rule or all rules. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like route_add, route_add_many, route_set_enabled, and route_block_set without needing 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through parameter examples (rule_id for one, all=True for all), but does not explicitly state when to use this versus route_set_enabled, route_block_set, or route_add alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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