browser_network_getRetrieve full details and response body of a captured network request by index, for inspecting specific requests during browser automation.
Fetch full details + response body of a captured request (by index).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | ||
| index | Yes | ||
| session | No | default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full details + response body' but does not state what happens with an invalid index, whether capture must be running, potential side effects, or error handling. Minimal behavioral context beyond the literal function.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage; every word contributes to understanding 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?
Despite a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on how to obtain the index (e.g., from browser_network_list), whether capture must be active, and the semantics of tab and session. The output schema covers return values, but the missing operational context leaves the agent uncertain about correct invocation.
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 clarifies that 'index' selects the captured request, but it does not explain 'tab' or 'session' parameters at all. The description adds only marginal value over the bare parameter names, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
The description clearly states the action (fetch), the resource (full details + response body of a captured request), and the selection mechanism (by index). It differentiates from siblings like browser_network_list, which likely provides summaries, and browser_network_capture_start/stop, which manage capture.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the index should come from browser_network_list, that capture must be active, or any prerequisites. The description is silent on exclusions and alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.