BrowserMCP Extended

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browser_network_export_har

Export captured browser traffic as HAR 1.2 JSON or save it to a specified file for debugging and analysis.

Instructions

Export captured traffic as HAR 1.2. Returns HAR JSON, or writes a new file on the MCP server machine if filePath is supplied. Existing files are not overwritten. Timing phases are aggregated; unavailable fields use HAR sentinel values.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "browser_network_export_har"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tabId`	No	Tab to capture or inspect (active tab by default).
`filePath`	No	Optional output .har file path on the MCP server machine

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses dual output modes (return JSON vs. write server-side file), the non-overwrite safety guarantee, and data fidelity notes (aggregated timing, sentinel values).

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format, each adding distinct information with no waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, but the description explains return values (HAR JSON or written file) and the fidelity caveats. Adequate for a two-parameter tool; minor gap is absence of capture-state prerequisites.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds behavioral meaning for filePath (writes a file on the MCP server rather than returning JSON) and implies the non-overwrite constraint, going beyond the schema text.

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 (Export) and resource (captured traffic) plus the target format (HAR 1.2). This clearly distinguishes it from inspection siblings like browser_network_list and browser_network_detail.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies usage context through 'captured traffic' and the filePath behavior, but doesn't explicitly say when to export vs. inspect via browser_network_list or browser_network_detail, nor mention prerequisites like an active capture.

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