Skip to main content
Glama
WhiteNightShadow

camoufox-reverse-mcp

by WhiteNightShadow
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

query_trace_file

Run post-hoc analysis on captured browser trace files to summarize execution, inspect event sequences, or search by object or string for debugging reverse-engineered JavaScript.

Instructions

Query a specific historical trace file (post-hoc analysis).

Args: file_path: Path to the .jsonl trace file. mode: Same as trace_property_access (summary/timeline/sequence/search). filter_object: Filter by object name. search_query: Filter by search string. limit: Max events for sequence mode. bucket_ms: Bucket size for timeline mode.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNosummary
limitNo
bucket_msNo
file_pathYes
filter_kindNo
filter_siteNo
search_queryNo
filter_objectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / filter_kind
      Added value: +{
+  "title": "Filter Kind",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / filter_site
      Added value: +{
+  "title": "Filter Site",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.1.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / filter_object / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • removedInput schema / properties / filter_object / default
      Removed value: -null
    • addedInput schema / properties / filter_object / type
      Added value: +"string"
    • removedInput schema / properties / search_query / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • removedInput schema / properties / search_query / default
      Removed value: -null
    • addedInput schema / properties / search_query / type
      Added value: +"string"
  3. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided and the description does not mention side effects, return format, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. As a query tool, read-only behavior is implied but never stated, and there is no output schema to clarify results.

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 and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a bulleted argument list. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has eight parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain the result format, pagination, or behavior across different modes. Missing parameter descriptions and lack of examples make the tool difficult to invoke correctly without additional context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description covers file_path, mode, filter_object, search_query, limit, and bucket_ms, but omits filter_kind and filter_site entirely. It also does not explain default values or valid enumerated values beyond the parenthetical mode list, leaving significant parameter ambiguity.

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 tool queries a specific historical trace file for post-hoc analysis, identifying both the action and the resource. It is distinguishable from trace-listing tools, though it references trace_property_access for mode semantics without fully defining the distinction.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool beyond 'post-hoc analysis' and 'historical trace file.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools