Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mitmproxy-mcp

mitmproxy-mcp

by u33pk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

flows_clear

Clear all in-memory network traffic flows to reset the captured state, with an option to also stop the proxy.

Instructions

Clear all in-memory flows. Optionally stop the proxy too.

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": "flows_clear"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stop_proxyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools