Inspect passively captured API requests using a URL regex filter, showing each request and the start of its response to debug or analyze browser extension traffic.
API-verkeer dat de extensie passief zag (url-regex grep). Toont request en begin van response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grep | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| max_chars | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose that traffic was captured passively by the extension and that output shows the request and beginning of the response. However, it omits permissions, whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, and how captures are retained.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the resource and source before describing the output. Every phrase contributes to the tool's purpose.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should say more about usage boundaries, pagination/limit behavior, and whether this is a safe read operation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'grep' as a URL-regex filter and implies response truncation via 'begin van response', but 'limit' is not addressed and max_chars is only indirectly suggested.
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?
States a specific verb ('Toont') and resource ('API-verkeer') and clarifies the source as traffic passively seen by the extension, filtered by a URL-regex grep. It clearly describes a retrieval tool for captured requests and partial responses, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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?
The description implies a use case (inspecting passively captured API traffic) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as superbuy_fetch or search. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.