jevnav

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

network_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve headers and text body of a recorded request from jevnav's network buffer using its id or a URL substring. No re-request occurs; data comes from the saved trace.

Instructions

Headers and (text) body of one recorded request: pass the id from network's output, or url_contains for the newest matching URL. Reads jevnav's own network buffer; nothing is re-requested.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`url_contains`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0Sep 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Id"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / index

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Index"
-}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that it reads jevnav's own network buffer and that nothing is re-requested. It also clarifies the selection behavior for url_contains (newest matching URL), giving the agent insight into how the tool executes.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence names the resource and selection methods, the second adds the important local-buffer note. Every element earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's simple nature, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how to identify the request, and the key behavioral trait (no re-request). No important calling detail is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains that 'id' comes from network's output and 'url_contains' selects the newest matching URL, providing useful semantics. It does not specify the matching format or behavior when both are omitted, but the core meanings are clear.

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 returns the headers and text body of one recorded request, with a specific selection mechanism (id or url_contains). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'network' tool by clarifying that this is the detail view for a single recorded request, not the list.

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 direct usage instructions: pass the id from network's output, or use url_contains to get the newest matching URL. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context makes the appropriate use case clear.

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

Deploy Server