camoufox-reverse-mcp

by WhiteNightShadow

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

list_network_requests

Retrieve captured network requests with optional filters for URL, method, resource type, and status code.

Instructions

List captured network requests with optional filters.

Args: url_filter: Substring filter for request URLs. url_contains_domain: Host/subdomain boundary filter (e.g. "example.com"). method: HTTP method filter (e.g. "GET", "POST"). resource_type: Resource type filter (e.g. "xhr", "fetch", "script", "document"). status_code: HTTP status code filter. limit: Optional page size (1..2000); omitted preserves the full list. after_id: Return IDs greater than this cursor, in capture order. Check network_capture(status).dropped_requests for lost history.

Returns: List of request summaries. Legacy size is retained body characters; size_unit is characters and body_bytes is the retained decoded entity byte count when encoding is known. Not compressed wire bytes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`method`	No
`after_id`	No
`url_filter`	No
`status_code`	No
`resource_type`	No
`url_contains_domain`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.6.0Sep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / after_id

Added value: +{
+  "title": "After Id",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "title": "Limit",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed15 schema fields changedv1.1.1Jul 30, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / method / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / method / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- addedInput schema / properties / method / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / resource_type / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / resource_type / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- addedInput schema / properties / resource_type / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / status_code / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / status_code / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- addedInput schema / properties / status_code / type
```
Added value: +"integer"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / url_contains_domain / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / url_contains_domain / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- addedInput schema / properties / url_contains_domain / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / url_filter / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / url_filter / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- addedInput schema / properties / url_filter / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0May 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / url_contains_domain

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Url Contains Domain"
+}

First observedv0.3.0Apr 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It explains what is returned (list of request summaries) and some retuned field semantics, but it does not state side effects, read-only nature, permissions, or potential rate limits. The lack of any mention of safety or side effects leaves uncertainty.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, uses concise wording, and provides necessary detail without unnecessary fluff. It is easy to parse and sufficiently compact for the complexity of the tool.

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?

The description covers all parameters and return format, including nuanced details about size units and after_id semantics. However, it omits potential edge cases like default ordering, empty results, or interaction with pagination beyond after_id. Still, for a list tool with filters, it is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite the schema having no per-parameter descriptions, the description's Args section explains every parameter: url_filter, url_contains_domain, method, resource_type, status_code, limit, and after_id. It also provides meaningful details like limit's range and after_id's cursor behavior, fully covering the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List captured network requests with optional filters.' This is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('captured network requests'), and it differentiates from siblings like get_network_request (singular) and intercept_request (modifying).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_network_request, export_network_capture, or compare_network_requests. It only lists parameters and return, but does not clarify the intended use cases or exclusions.

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