Capture and inspect browser network requests by starting, stopping, listing, or detailing sessions, with filters to debug traffic and API calls.
Capture/list network requests. cmd: start | stop | list | detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cmd | Yes | ||
| filter | No | ||
| session | No | Per-call session override (does not change the process default) | |
| requestId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It only enumerates the cmd values (start|stop|list|detail) but does not explain stateful behavior, such as whether start clears previous captures, how list returns data, or what detail requires. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
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 extremely concise, consisting of one sentence plus the cmd enumeration. Every word is informative, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's purpose before listing subcommands. This is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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, no annotations, and only 25% parameter coverage, the description should provide more context about return values, state management, and parameters. It does not explain what list or detail outputs look like, how filter interacts with commands, or what session overrides imply. This is incomplete for a stateful capture 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 low (25% only for session), and the description does not compensate. It repeats the cmd enum values already present in the schema but adds no explanation for filter or requestId parameters. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Capture/list network requests' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which deal with network traffic, and lists subcommands (start|stop|list|detail) that further clarify the intended actions.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to prefer one subcommand over another. The purpose statement implies it is for network request capture, but there is no context about typical scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.