Skip to main content
Glama
mako10k

Web Proxy MCP Server

by mako10k

proxy_remove_target

Remove a domain from proxy monitoring to stop tracking its traffic and analysis in the Web Proxy MCP Server.

Instructions

Remove a target domain from proxy monitoring

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to remove from monitoring

Implementation Reference

  • Schema definition for proxy_remove_target tool, specifying input requirements (domain string) and description.
    proxy_remove_target: {
      name: "proxy_remove_target",
      description: "Remove a target domain from proxy monitoring",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          domain: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Domain to remove from monitoring"
          }
        },
        required: ["domain"]
      }
    },
  • MCP tool handler for proxy_remove_target: validates args, calls targetManager.removeTarget(domain), and returns formatted response.
    case 'proxy_remove_target':
      const removed = this.targetManager.removeTarget(args.domain);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: `Target removed: ${args.domain}\nStatus: ${removed ? 'success' : 'not found'}\nRemaining domains: ${this.targetManager.getStats().enabled}`
        }]
      };
  • Core logic implementation: removes target domain from internal Map storage and updates PAC file if removed.
    removeTarget(domain) {
      if (!domain) {
        throw new Error('Domain is required');
      }
    
      const removed = this.targets.delete(domain.toLowerCase());
      if (removed) {
        this._updatePacFile();
      }
      
      return removed;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Remove,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects ongoing monitoring sessions, or what happens to associated data (e.g., traffic logs). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and side effects.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error conditions), usage context, and what to expect upon success or failure. While the purpose is clear, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially compared to richer sibling tools like 'proxy_analyze_traffic' which might have more descriptive support.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'domain' parameter fully documented as 'Domain to remove from monitoring.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples (e.g., 'example.com') or constraints (e.g., must be an existing target). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('a target domain from proxy monitoring'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'proxy_add_target' and 'proxy_update_target' by specifying removal rather than addition or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is for monitoring targets specifically, which could be inferred but isn't stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the domain must already be monitored), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove domains that are actively being analyzed), or direct alternatives like 'proxy_update_target' for modifying instead of removing. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mako10k/mcp-web-proxy'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server