arc_networkCapture HTTP responses from a browser tab, filtering by URL regex or showing only errors (status >=400).
Respostas HTTP capturadas na aba desde que ela abriu.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tabId | No | Aba alvo. Omita para usar a aba própria ativa (nunca uma aba do usuário). | |
| pattern | No | Filtro regex sobre a URL. | |
| onlyErrors | No | Só respostas com status >= 400. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the data returned (HTTP responses) but does not disclose details like response format, whether bodies or headers are included, or if it is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral nuance.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized with no filler, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return structure. It only says 'HTTP responses' without specifying fields, ordering, or pagination. It also does not clarify the tab scope behavior mentioned in the schema, relying on the schema for that detail.
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 100%, with each parameter having its own description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not elaborate on how parameters interact or provide examples.
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 states that the tool returns HTTP responses captured in the tab since it opened. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like arc_click or arc_navigate, which are action-oriented. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', making it slightly less direct.
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 any conditions such as inspecting network traffic or debugging, nor does it reference sibling tools. The description is purely descriptive without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.