Skip to main content
Glama

get_network_request

Read-only

Retrieve specific network request details from Chrome DevTools using its unique identifier to analyze HTTP traffic for debugging and performance monitoring.

Instructions

Gets a network request by URL. You can get all requests by calling list_network_requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reqidYesThe reqid of a request on the page from the listed network requests

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the 'get_network_request' tool. It attaches the network request with the given reqid to the response.
      handler: async (request, response, _context) => {
        response.attachNetworkRequest(request.params.reqid);
      },
    });
  • Input schema for the tool, defining the required 'reqid' parameter as a number.
    schema: {
      reqid: z
        .number()
        .describe(
          'The reqid of a request on the page from the listed network requests',
        ),
    },
  • Registration of the 'get_network_request' tool using defineTool, including name, description, annotations, schema, and handler.
    export const getNetworkRequest = defineTool({
      name: 'get_network_request',
      description: `Gets a network request by URL. You can get all requests by calling ${listNetworkRequests.name}.`,
      annotations: {
        category: ToolCategories.NETWORK,
        readOnlyHint: true,
      },
      schema: {
        reqid: z
          .number()
          .describe(
            'The reqid of a request on the page from the listed network requests',
          ),
      },
      handler: async (request, response, _context) => {
        response.attachNetworkRequest(request.params.reqid);
      },
    });
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying it retrieves by URL, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, response format, or dependencies on 'list_network_requests'. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence adds value by stating the purpose and providing usage guidance, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, read-only) and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return values or error cases. It covers basic purpose and alternatives but could be more complete for a retrieval tool, such as explaining what data is returned.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'reqid' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'URL' but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, which already defines 'reqid' as a number from listed network requests. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('a network request by URL'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_network_requests' beyond mentioning it as an alternative for getting all requests, which is helpful but not a full differentiation.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. an alternative ('list_network_requests' for all requests), which helps in selecting the right tool. However, it lacks details on prerequisites or when not to use it, such as if 'reqid' must come from a prior list call.

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/SHAY5555-gif/chrome-devtools-mcp'

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