Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zen-browser

zen-browser

by grapedjuice
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

read_network_requests

Lists network requests made by a browser tab since monitoring began, with optional URL pattern and limit filters to inspect tab traffic.

Instructions

List network requests made by the tab since the extension started watching it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "read_network_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
tabIdNoTab to act on. Defaults to the active tab of the focused Zen window.
urlPatternNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful caveat: results only cover requests since the extension started watching the tab, so the agent knows there is no historical/backfilled data. It says nothing about ordering, truncation, whether watching can be toggled, or whether request bodies/headers are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the temporal scope constraint is folded into the same clause rather than padded out.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A zero-required-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover return shape and paging, and it does neither. An agent cannot tell what a result entry looks like, whether limit truncates newest or oldest first, or how urlPattern is interpreted.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% — tabId is documented in the schema, but limit and urlPattern are bare. The description says nothing about urlPattern's matching syntax (glob vs regex vs substring) or what limit defaults to, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List network requests") plus a scope qualifier ("made by the tab"), which lets an agent distinguish it from read_console_messages and get_page_text. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiating.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named (e.g., read_console_messages for logs vs this for HTTP traffic). The only routing signal is the implicit one carried by the resource name.

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