List active network route interceptor mock rules and their hit count statistics, optionally filtering by URL pattern, method, or operationName.
List all active network route interceptor mock rules and hit count statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Optional substring filter for URL pattern, method, or operationName |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states that only active rules are listed and that hit count statistics are included, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, permissions, or whether inactive rules are silently excluded.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation, scope, and returned information efficiently.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it says what is listed and that hit counts are returned. Minor gaps remain around return shape and ordering, but these are not critical for a list operation.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single optional filter parameter, so the schema already explains filtering by URL pattern, method, or operationName. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the tool's overall scope.
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 description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all active network route interceptor mock rules and hit count statistics.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as vibeside_mock_route or vibeside_clear_mock_routes.
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?
Usage is implied: this tool is for retrieving currently active mock route rules. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to call it versus alternatives, nor any mention of related tools like vibeside_mock_route, vibeside_clear_mock_routes, or how this fits into a mocking workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.