API Monitor MCP

by zxcvbbq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

api_monitor_monitoring_control

Start or stop a background API monitoring session to capture live traffic without blocking your main tasks.

Instructions

Start or stop the selected Rohitab monitoring session in the background.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "api_monitor_monitoring_control"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`action`	Yes
`architecture`	No	x64
`window_handle`	No
`timeout_seconds`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.26Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds one useful behavioral fact ('in the background'), but omits what the action values are, what happens to an already-running session, whether stopping destroys state, required permissions, or any side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the background-execution qualifier come first. It is appropriately short, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a 4-parameter control tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description omits parameter meaning, valid actions, and prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably invoke this without guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description only loosely maps the word 'start or stop' to the required 'action' parameter. The other three parameters (architecture, window_handle, timeout_seconds) are completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 pair (start/stop) and resource (Rohitab monitoring session), which is enough for an agent to know what it does. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like api_monitor_process_control or api_monitor_monitor_process, leaving the boundary between 'monitoring session' control and 'process' control ambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The word 'selected' implies a prior selection step exists but never says which tool produces it, and there is no hint about relation to process_control/attach_process.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server