Skip to main content
Glama
frsorrentino

Chrome Bridge

by frsorrentino
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

monitor_network

Read-onlyIdempotent

Capture and inspect network requests from browser pages, covering XHR, fetch, static assets, and WebSocket connections, with optional HAR format export.

Instructions

Monitor network requests. source=page: XHR/fetch hook (installed on first call); source=browser: all requests incl. static assets; source=websocket: connections and messages. format=har exports HAR 1.2.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clearNoClear buffer after read
limitNoMost recent; buffer 1000
formatNohar exports HAR 1.2 for external toolinglines
sourceNopage: XHR/fetch only; browser: static assets too; websocket: connections and messagespage
tab_idNoTarget tab; omitted = last tab navigated in this session, else the active one

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.16.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Previous value: -"page sees XHR/fetch only; browser also sees static assets"New value: +"page: XHR/fetch only; browser: static assets too; websocket: connections and messages"
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "page",
-  "browser"
-]New value: +[
+  "page",
+  "browser",
+  "websocket"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.10.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Added value: +"har exports HAR 1.2 for external tooling"
    • addedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Added value: +"page sees XHR/fetch only; browser also sees static assets"
    • addedInput schema / properties / tab_id / description
      Added value: +"Target tab; omitted = last tab navigated in this session, else the active one"
  3. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds transparency by noting that the page source installs a hook on first call, which is a subtle side effect not fully covered by the annotations. This extra detail improves behavioral understanding.

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 compact yet informative, using semicolons to separate key points. It avoids unnecessary fluff and conveys all essential details in a structured manner, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 the tool's core behavior, source options, and output format. It lacks a detailed explanation of the return structure (no output schema), but the limit parameter mentions a buffer, giving some context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover all parameters, but the description adds semantic clarity for the enum values (e.g., 'page: XHR/fetch only' and 'har exports HAR 1.2') and explains buffer limits. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 purpose as 'Monitor network requests' and specifies the different sources (page, browser, websocket) and output format (har). This gives a precise understanding of what the tool does and distinguishes it from potential sibling tools like network_rules.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides guidance on selecting source types and explains the format export, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., network_rules or track_events). The guidance is implicit through parameter descriptions rather than direct usage scenarios.

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