browser_network_detailRetrieve headers, body, and timing for a captured browser request. Use captureId and requestId from network start and list tools to inspect one request in full.
Get the full details (headers, body, timing) of one captured request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| captureId | Yes | The capture id returned by browser_network_start | |
| requestId | Yes | The request id from browser_network_list |
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 discloses the return contents (headers, body, timing), which is genuinely useful for a read-only fetch, but says nothing about payload size, truncation, performance cost, or error behavior for a detail endpoint that may return large bodies.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first and the return contents follow, so nothing needs to be skimmed for or re-read.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must hint at return values, and it does so by naming headers, body, and timing. That is enough for an agent to know what it gets back, though it does not describe the shape or size of the payload.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself explains where captureId and requestId come from, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the notion that the requestId identifies "one captured request" and does not go beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("the full details of one captured request"), and even enumerates what those details are (headers, body, timing). This distinguishes it from browser_network_list, which returns the request list, but the description never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase "one captured request" signals it operates on an already-captured request, and the schema parameter descriptions chain it to browser_network_start and browser_network_list. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus browser_network_list or when it is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.