Clear all captured HTTP/HTTPS traffic from Android devices to reset analysis sessions and free up memory.
清空所有捕获的流量
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": "traffic_clear"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this operation is destructive (likely yes, but unstated), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides any confirmation/response. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a clear operation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless operation and is front-loaded with the core action.
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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'captured traffic' refers to, whether the clearance is permanent, what happens to related data (e.g., traffic details), or what the tool returns (success/failure status). Given the complexity of traffic management and sibling tools, more context is needed.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the empty input schema. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.
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 '清空所有捕获的流量' (Clear all captured traffic) clearly states the action (clear) and target resource (captured traffic). It distinguishes from siblings like traffic_list (list) and traffic_get_detail (get detail), but doesn't explicitly contrast with android_clear_proxy which clears proxy settings rather than traffic.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether traffic must be actively captured), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose other traffic-related tools like traffic_search or traffic_read_body.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.