get_requestRetrieve a captured HTTP request by traffic ID to inspect its full headers and redacted body. Use after listing traffic to debug or verify a specific exchange.
Return the full headers and redacted body of a single captured request by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Traffic entry id from list_traffic. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine extra context beyond that: headers are 'full' while the body is 'redacted', which tells the agent what it will actually receive and that payload content is not exposed or exportable.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key scoping fact (single, by id). Nothing extraneous; every phrase carries information.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating exactly what is returned (full headers, redacted body). It omits edge behavior such as a missing/expired id, but is otherwise sufficient for a one-parameter read tool.
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 a single parameter already documented as the traffic entry id from list_traffic. The description adds only 'by id', so baseline 3 is correct.
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 (Return) and resource (single captured request) with the retrieval key (by id), and 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list/search tools. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'by id' suggests the id must come from a listing tool, and the schema echoes this ('Traffic entry id from list_traffic'). There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives like analyze_request or replay_request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.