Skip to main content
Glama
ElonJask

ProxyPin MCP Server

by ElonJask

list_requests

Retrieve and analyze captured HTTP traffic from ProxyPin to inspect recent requests, filter by domain, method, or status, and support API analysis.

Instructions

List recent HTTP requests captured by ProxyPin.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
detailNosummary
domainNo
methodNo
statusNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The 'list_requests' tool is defined here as an MCP tool handler using the FastMCP decorator. It performs input validation, fetches requests from the reader, and formats the output as JSON.
    @mcp.tool()
    def list_requests(
        limit: int = 20,
        detail: str = "summary",
        domain: str | None = None,
        method: str | None = None,
        status: int | None = None,
    ) -> str:
        """List recent HTTP requests captured by ProxyPin."""
        normalized_limit = _bounded_limit(limit, default=20, maximum=100)
        normalized_detail = detail.lower().strip()
        detail_level = (
            DetailLevel(normalized_detail)
            if normalized_detail in VALID_DETAILS
            else DetailLevel.SUMMARY
        )
    
        requests = reader.get_requests(
            limit=normalized_limit,
            detail_level=detail_level,
            domain=domain,
            method=method,
            status_code=status,
        )
        return _json_response([request.model_dump() for request in requests])
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent HTTP requests' which implies some temporal filtering, but doesn't specify what 'recent' means (time window, default behavior). It doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no parameters are provided. The description is too minimal for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, it's arguably too concise given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no schema descriptions).

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't provide enough context about parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from sibling tools to be considered complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'recent' which might relate to an implicit time parameter, but doesn't explain any of the 5 documented parameters (limit, detail, domain, method, status). It doesn't clarify what 'summary' vs other detail levels mean, or how filtering by domain/method/status works.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('recent HTTP requests captured by ProxyPin'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_requests' or 'get_request', which appear to be related alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_requests' or 'get_request'. It mentions 'recent' requests but doesn't clarify if this is the only way to get recent requests or if other tools also handle recent requests. No explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ElonJask/proxypin-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server