Skip to main content
Glama
DB-25

arc-control-mcp

Network Requests

network_requests
Read-onlyIdempotent

List captured network requests for a tab—method, URL, status, type, timing, and size—to debug API calls, failures, or page loads. Capture starts when CDP first touches the tab.

Instructions

List the network requests a tab has made: method, url, status, type, timing and transferred size. No bodies. Headers are left out unless include_headers is set, and even then cookie, authorization and set-cookie values are redacted. Needs the DevTools engine. URLs are shown without their query string and fragment, since queries often carry tokens; include_query keeps the query. Header names that look like credentials (cookie, authorization, anything with token, secret, key, session or signature in the name, x-auth-*) are redacted. Capture starts the first time any CDP tool touches this tab, and CDP has no history to read back, so nothing from before that is here. Call this tool (or cdp_status then any CDP tool) before the action you want to observe.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOnly this resource type, for example Fetch, XHR, Document, Script, Image
clearNoEmpty this tab's network buffer after reading
limitNoNewest entries to return, at most 500
tab_idNoArc tab id from list_tabs. Omit to use the tab you opened last. Unlike other read tools this never falls back to the tab the user is looking at: with no id and no tab of yours it is refused, so pass this or call open_url first.
failed_onlyNoOnly requests that failed or returned status 400 or above
url_containsNoOnly requests whose url contains this text
include_queryNoKeep the url query string. Off by default because queries often carry tokens, and url_contains then matches the url without its query.
include_headersNoInclude request and response headers, with credential headers redacted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context on top: bodies excluded, header credential redaction rules, query-string and fragment stripping, and the CDP capture-window limitation with no historical readback. This is exactly the behavioral detail 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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields, then the constraints, then the ordering instruction — a sensible sequence. Slightly redundant: the redaction of cookie/authorization/set-cookie is stated once for include_headers and then restated in the broader credential-header rule, costing a sentence.

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?

For an 8-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the return shape, the capture prerequisite, redaction policy, and the tab-resolution quirk. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: the include_query/url_contains interaction ('url_contains then matches the url without its query') and the header-redaction scope for include_headers. It also reinforces the tab_id refusal semantics. This exceeds what the schema text alone conveys.

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 and resource with an explicit enumeration of the returned fields (method, url, status, type, timing, transferred size), so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'network_entries', which sounds like an overlapping network-listing tool, so an agent cannot disambiguate between the two from the description alone.

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?

Gives concrete ordering guidance: 'Call this tool (or cdp_status then any CDP tool) before the action you want to observe,' and warns that capture only begins once a CDP tool touches the tab. It also flags the tab_id divergence from other read tools ('never falls back to the tab the user is looking at'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead in any scenario, so no explicit when-not.

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