mitmproxy-mcp

by u33pk

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: proxy lifecycle management, flow singular vs plural actions, and request sending. Descriptions clearly differentiate between creating a flow without sending versus sending a request.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent prefix_verb pattern with underscores (e.g., proxy_start, flows_list, flow_update). Singular vs plural prefixes are used appropriately for single vs batch operations.
Tool Count5/5
13 tools cover proxy management, flow CRUD, load/save, replay, and request sending without unnecessary overlap. The scope aligns well with the mitmproxy domain.
Completeness5/5
The set covers the full lifecycle: proxy start/stop/status, flow capture, retrieval, creation, modification, deletion, persistence, and replay/send. No obvious gaps for standard proxy operations.
Average 3/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 25 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as blocking behavior, side effects, permissions, error states, or impact on existing proxy instances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short single sentence, but it is under-specification rather than concise. It does not efficiently convey important details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is insufficient given five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. It fails to explain return values, configuration, or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides no explanation of the 5 parameters (host, port, capture_filter, etc.). The schema only gives defaults and types.
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 'Start the mitmproxy capture proxy,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like proxy_status and proxy_stop. However, it lacks details about mitmproxy's role.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like proxy_stop or flow tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete a flow from memory,' omitting whether operation is destructive, irreversible, requires permissions, or affects other data. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it lacks necessary details. It is front-loaded but incomplete, earning a mid-range score.
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 tool performs a deletion operation and has an output schema, the description should explain return values or side effects. It does not, leaving the agent underinformed compared to similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the single parameter 'flow_id'. Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description offers no additional context like how to obtain the ID or format constraints.
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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a flow', and specifies a scope 'from memory'. This distinguishes it from siblings like flow_create or flows_clear, but could be more explicit about the scope's implications.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like flows_clear or flow_update. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or conditions that make this tool appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (does it modify state?), safety (idempotent?), or requirements. 'Replay' implies action but no details on what happens.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks essential details. It is not front-loaded with critical information; it is minimal but not optimally structured.
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?
For a tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the replay process, preconditions (e.g., proxy status), or what the output contains. The output schema exists but description adds no value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameters are not described at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain what 'flow_id' or 'use_modified' mean. The default for 'use_modified' is mentioned but not its effect.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Replay a captured flow') and specifies the resource ('captured flow') and method ('using mitmproxy's built-in replay.client'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that create, delete, get, etc., by focusing on replaying.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus others. No mention of prerequisites or context (e.g., proxy must be running, flow must be captured). The description is purely functional without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List captured flows with optional filtering and pagination', which implies a safe read operation, but it does not detail critical behaviors like default pagination limits, how filtering logic works (AND/OR), what happens on empty results, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—a single sentence without fluff. It front-loads the core action. However, for a tool with six parameters, slightly more structure (e.g., mentioning defaults or filter logic) could improve clarity without losing conciseness.
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 tool has six parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination defaults (offset, limit), filter combination logic, output structure (though an output schema exists), or any usage constraints. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description vaguely mentions 'optional filtering and pagination', but does not explain what the filtering parameters (host, method, status, search) represent or how they interact. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value.
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 tool lists captured flows, which is a specific verb+resource. It mentions optional filtering and pagination, adding value beyond the name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like flow_get or flows_clear, though the name 'flows_list' already hints at listing.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as flow_get or flows_clear. The description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'using mitmproxy's built-in replay.client' but does not explain side effects (e.g., that it actually sends a live HTTP request, modifies state, or requires specific permissions). No warnings about potential rate limits or destructive actions are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, but it could be more structured. It uses one sentence and does not waste words, but it lacks a clear breakdown of tool purpose, usage, or parameters. It is adequate but not optimal.
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 the tool (5 parameters, no schema coverage, and a boolean output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the boolean return value (e.g., success/failure), nor does it provide context about the 'replay.client' mechanism or any prerequisites. The presence of an output schema mitigates some need for return value explanation, but overall completeness is low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the role of 'method', 'url', 'headers', 'body', or 'body_encoding'. The schema provides basic types and titles, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Send a new HTTP request') and the resource ('new HTTP request'), and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'flow_replay' which replays existing flows. The verb 'Send' and object 'new HTTP request' are specific and unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., flow_replay for replaying captured flows, flow_create for creating flows from scratch). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the mitmproxy proxy to be running, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutative action 'Clear all in-memory flows' and optional proxy stop, but lacks details on whether flows are recoverable, impact on saved flows, or side effects on proxy state. This is inadequate for a destructive tool.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant words. Every bit of text serves a purpose.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to contextualize what happens after clearing: success indication, number of cleared flows, or any confirmation. It also does not tie into sibling tools (e.g., flows_list to verify clearing). Incomplete for a state-changing operation.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to the stop_proxy parameter by stating 'Optionally stop the proxy too'. This clarifies the parameter's effect beyond the schema's title. However, it does not explain the default or behavior when not set. A 3 is appropriate as it adds value but leaves gaps.
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 verb 'Clear' and resource 'all in-memory flows', which is specific and distinguishes from siblings like flow_delete (single flow) or flows_list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other clearing tools, but the name and context suffice for a 4.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like flow_delete or flows_load. The only usage hint is the optional proxy stop, but no context about prerequisites or scenarios where clearing flows is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only implies mutation ('Modify') but does not disclose what aspects are modifiable, whether changes are reversible, side effects on other operations, or any requirements (e.g., authentication). With no annotations, the description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but sacrifices completeness for brevity. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource but lacks critical details for a tool with many parameters.
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?
With 14 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a laconic description, the tool definition is incomplete. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the agent lacks information on return values. The description does not cover the complexity of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the 14 parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., 'Request Method'), the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema structure.
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?
The description clearly states the action 'Modify' and the resource 'a captured request/response and its metadata', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like flow_create (create), flow_delete (delete), and flow_get (get).
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?
No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., flow_create for new flows, flow_replay for replaying). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions creation and storage without side effects, return value, or any behavioral constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but could be slightly expanded to include more context without losing conciseness.
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?
Despite having an output schema and 6 parameters, the description lacks context about what a 'request flow' is, what the output represents, and how this interacts with the system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and the description provides no additional meaning for any of the 6 parameters, relying solely on their names.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'request flow', and adds 'store it (without sending)' which distinguishes it from related tools like request_send and flow_update.
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?
Implies usage for creating flows that are not sent immediately, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like flow_update or flows_save.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or return format. It only says 'get the full details', which is minimal. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so a simple description might suffice, but it lacks any context about error handling, prerequisites, or the response structure. It is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the required flow_id parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's title 'Flow Id'.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of a single flow', which distinguishes it from siblings like flows_list (multiple) and flow_create (creation).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. The description is a single statement with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'load into memory' without specifying whether existing flows are replaced or appended, or if there are side effects on the current state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the essential information. A bit more structure (e.g., stating 'To restore previously saved flows') could improve clarity but not required for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single parameter and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema exists but is not shown; if it defines return values, the description need not explain them. Still, it lacks details on behavior (overwrite/append) and error conditions.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the file type (.mitm). However, it does not specify path constraints (local/URL), valid file extensions, or default behavior if the path 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'load', the resource 'flows', and the file format '.mitm'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flows_save (save to file) and flows_list (list flows).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) or situations where other tools like 'flows_create' or 'flows_list' are preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that all in-memory flows are saved to a .mitm file, but it does not reveal critical behavioral traits such as whether the tool overwrites an existing file, requires directory existence, or has side effects (e.g., clearing in-memory flows). This lack of detail creates significant gaps for safe invocation.
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 sentence of 10 words with no unnecessary information. It is maximally concise and front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description provides adequate high-level purpose but lacks details on side effects, return format, and file handling. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully complete for confident invocation without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 adds only minimal semantics by implying that the 'path' parameter should point to a .mitm file. It fails to specify path format (absolute/relative), required directory permissions, or restrictions like needing a file path versus directory. More detail is needed for a single required parameter.
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?
The description 'Save all in-memory flows to a .mitm file' uses a specific verb ('save') and clearly identifies the resource ('all in-memory flows') and output format ('.mitm file'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like flows_load, flows_clear, and flows_list by specifying the save-to-file action.
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: if you want to persist flows to a file, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., flows_load for loading, flows_clear for clearing), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether stopping is immediate, if ongoing captures are lost, or if any confirmation is required. This is minimal disclosure.
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 concise sentence with no redundant information. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema provided but present), the description is adequate for a basic stop action. However, it lacks context about the effect on current captures or system state, which would be helpful for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the input schema fully describes the expected input. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since the tool requires no arguments.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Stop') and the resource ('the mitmproxy capture proxy'), making it easy for the agent to understand the tool's purpose. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'proxy_start' (which starts the proxy) and 'proxy_status' (which checks status).
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when not to use it. Usage is implied (stop the proxy when it's running), but no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It clearly denotes a read operation with no side effects, though it omits details like authentication or rate limits.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description effectively states what is returned and covers the essential purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add param info, meeting the baseline for no-param tools.
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?
The description clearly states the tool gets 'current proxy status and number of captured flows', specifying a distinct verb and resource. It stands apart from siblings like proxy_start and flows_list.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or when not to. The purpose is implied but without declaring alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mitmproxy-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/u33pk/mitmproxy-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/u33pk/mitmproxy-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mitmproxy-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/u33pk/mitmproxy-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/u33pk/mitmproxy-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/u33pk/mitmproxy-mcp'

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