awwwards-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

analyze_network_capture

Read-onlyIdempotent

Extracts offline API-surface evidence from a local HAR file, grouping requests into templated endpoints with counts, statuses and content types while redacting sensitive values.

Instructions

Offline API-surface evidence from a local HAR 1.2 file (browser devtools export): groups requests by method + origin + path template (ISO dates, versions, UUIDs, hex ids and numbers templated; emails, tokens and long high-entropy segments redacted), with counts, statuses, content types and query names only. Reads the file only — never fetches recorded URLs, never returns bodies, headers or query values. No network.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_network_capture"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top`	No	Max groups after sorting (default 50, max 200)
`path`	Yes	Local path to a HAR 1.2 file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.14.0Oct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, yet the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: templating of ISO dates/versions/UUIDs/hex ids/numbers, redaction of emails, tokens and high-entropy segments, and confinement to counts/statuses/content types/query names. The explicit 'never fetches recorded URLs, never returns bodies, headers or query values' is exactly the safety and privacy disclosure an agent needs before handing over a HAR file.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then redaction semantics, then the no-network guarantee. Every clause carries distinct information — no filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape — and it does, listing grouped requests with counts, statuses, content types and query names. For a two-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or default hints for 'top' or 'path'. Baseline 3 applies because the structured schema carries the parameter burden here.

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?

States a specific verb (analyze) plus the exact resource and input form: API-surface evidence from a local HAR 1.2 file. It also specifies the grouping key (method + origin + path template), which no sibling does, making it easy to distinguish from live-capture or page-structure tools.

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?

The 'local HAR 1.2 file (browser devtools export)' framing and 'No network' make the preconditions and the contrast with live-capture siblings clear. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g., 'for live sites use capture_live_site'), so selection is inferred rather than spelled out.

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