Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mitmproxy-mcp

mitmproxy-mcp

by u33pk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

flows_load

Load HTTP traffic captures from a .mitm file into memory for analysis and replay.

Instructions

Load flows from a .mitm file into memory.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "flows_load"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools