Skip to main content
Glama
DB-25

arc-control-mcp

by DB-25
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Network Entries

network_entries
Read-onlyIdempotent

List a page's network requests using browser resource timing, with no recorder to install, so you can inspect URLs, initiators, timing, size, and status even when CSP blocks capture tools.

Instructions

List the page's network requests from the browser's own resource timing (performance.getEntriesByType), with no recorder to install, so it works on any page including ones whose CSP blocks capture_start. Each entry has url, initiator (fetch, xmlhttprequest, script, img, css, ...), start and duration in ms since the page began, size, and status where the browser exposes it. Limits: only requests that finished (a failed one often leaves no entry), the browser keeps about 250 entries unless the page raised that, cross-origin entries hide size and status unless the server opts in with Timing-Allow-Origin, and data: URLs do not appear. No bodies or headers. The url query string is dropped unless include_query is set.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMost entries to return, newest last, up to 500
filterNoCase-insensitive substring a url must contain
tab_idNoArc tab id from list_tabs. Omit to use this agent's current tab. A tool that changes a tab will not fall back to the tab the user is looking at, so pass this or call open_url first.
since_msNoOnly entries that started at or after this many ms since the page began, to read just what an action caused. Take it from a previous call's nowMs.
include_queryNoKeep the url query string. Off by default because queries often carry tokens.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: only finished requests appear, ~250 entry cap, cross-origin entries hide size/status unless Timing-Allow-Origin opts in, data: URLs are absent, no bodies/headers, and query strings are stripped by default. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core action and mechanism before listing limits, and every clause carries real information (no filler or restatement of the title). Length is justified by the number of behavioral caveats, though it could be broken into purpose/limits/parameters segments for easier scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully, enumerating entry fields (url, initiator, start, duration, size, status) and the conditions under which fields are missing. Combined with the deferred-param and limits context, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 the schema already documents limit, filter, tab_id, since_ms, and include_query thoroughly, including the default-comparison rationale for include_query. The description reinforces a few of these (the query-string drop and the entry cap that bounds limit) but adds no per-parameter syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource (list the page's network requests) and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the mechanism (performance.getEntriesByType) and the alternative it replaces (capture_start, blocked by CSP). An agent can tell it apart from network_requests and the capture_* family without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states a clear use condition: works on any page with no recorder, including pages whose CSP blocks capture_start, which implicitly routes agents away from the recorder-based tools. It does not explicitly name network_requests or state when that sibling should be preferred instead, so the exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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