Retrieve CDP-level network capture rows for a browser session, optionally filtering failures or clearing entries, to debug web requests and page activity.
Read CDP-level network capture rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| only_failures | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing. Most notably, the 'clear' parameter likely destroys captured data, but the description never warns about destructive behavior, nor does it state whether the result is a snapshot or a paginated tail, or any lifecycle prerequisite.
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 short sentence with no filler, which is fine, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially nothing to front-load.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required. But for a four-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, the definition omits parameter meanings, the destructive nature of 'clear', and the capture lifecycle relationship to the sibling start/stop/status tools.
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% and the description adds nothing: no explanation of 'limit' semantics, no warning that 'clear' purges the buffer, no clarification of what counts as a 'failure' for 'only_failures'. All four parameters are wholly undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('CDP-level network capture rows'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings like browser_network_requests or browser_network_capture_status, leaving the agent to guess which reader to call.
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 when-to-use guidance at all. It never says that a capture must presumably be started first (browser_network_capture_start), nor how it differs from browser_network_requests or browser_network_capture_status. The agent must infer the whole workflow from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.