Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mihomo-mcp

mihomo-mcp

by wlor0623
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_rules

View and filter the mihomo/Clash Meta core rule table by keyword to inspect matching rule type, payload, or proxy, with a configurable result limit.

Instructions

查看内核规则表,支持关键词过滤

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": "get_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo最多返回条数,默认 50
searchNo过滤关键词(匹配 type/payload/proxy,不区分大小写)

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '查看' (view) implies a read-only operation, which is some value, but the description says nothing about return shape, ordering, pagination behavior, permissions, or what happens with large rule sets. It largely restates what the schema already shows.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It lacks any note on result format or scope of the rule table, but the complexity is low enough that the gap is not severe.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both limit (default 50) and search (case-insensitive match on type/payload/proxy) are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of keyword filtering adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: viewing the kernel rules table (查看内核规则表), plus notes keyword filtering is supported. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from any sibling (none of the listed siblings overlap, so no differentiation is strictly needed).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The only implied usage is that one calls it to inspect rules; nothing about prerequisites or how it relates to other tools is stated.

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