Aggregate captured HTTP/WebSocket traffic over a time window to get totals, status groups, failing endpoints with last flow IDs, and the slowest request.
Start here. Totals, status groups, failing endpoints grouped (with the last flow id of each) and the slowest request for a time window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Window like "5m", "1h", or "all" | 5m |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description presents a read-only summarization operation, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=true, creating a serious contradiction about whether calling the tool can alter data. Although readOnlyHint=true aligns with the description, the contradictory destructive flag is unresolved and leaves the tool's behavior ambiguous.
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?
The description is two short sentences with the most important guidance ('Start here') front-loaded. The remaining sentence compactly lists the return contents without boilerplate or repetition.
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?
With no output schema, the description does need to explain what comes back, and it names the key result categories including the useful last-flow-id detail for failing endpoints. It does not clarify limits, truncation, or behavior on very large windows, and it leaves the destructive-annotation conflict unaddressed.
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?
There is only one optional parameter, and the schema fully documents it with a default and examples like '5m', '1h', and 'all'. The description's phrase 'for a time window' reinforces its purpose but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description states a specific aggregate operation and enumerates exactly what is summarized: totals, status groups, grouped failing endpoints with their last flow ids, and the slowest request. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools such as list_requests and search_traffic.
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?
'Start here' gives a clear indication that this is the initial overview tool, and 'for a time window' defines the scope of use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like search_traffic or list_requests, so the agent must infer when to switch tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.