Discover which interceptors are available and their active targets across Browser, Terminal, and Docker, enabling you to verify capture readiness for network traffic.
List all interceptors with their availability and active targets. Shows the Browser, Terminal and Docker interceptors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states it lists availability and active targets, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or disclose any potential side effects, permissions, or output details. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The key information (lists all interceptors, shows availability and targets, names the interceptor types) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the tool's action, the scope (all interceptors), and the data shown. It could explicitly state the return format or confirm it is read-only, but given the simplicity, the gap is minor.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds value by specifying what will be listed (availability, active targets, and interceptor types), which compensates for the absence of parameter details. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets it.
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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'all interceptors', and specifies what it shows (availability and active targets). It also names the specific interceptors (Browser, Terminal, Docker), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like interceptor_status or interceptor_deactivate_all. However, it does not explicitly contrast with a close sibling, so it misses the top score.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use for an overview' or 'instead of interceptor_status'. The description only explains what it does, not when to select it over other interceptor-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.