Fetch a complete network request by ID or URL substring, returning headers, request body, and response details. Use to inspect any captured request in full.
Fetch one network request in full: headers, request body, response status/headers/body. Identify it by id (from net_list) or a url substring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| url | No | substring match against the request url | |
| sessionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents and the identification mechanism, but it does not mention edge behaviors such as what happens when both id and url are supplied, when neither is supplied, or when multiple requests match the url substring. The read-only nature is implied via 'Fetch' but not explicitly stated.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence that first states the action and result, then the identification method. There is no repetition of schema fields or annotations, and every clause earns its place.
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?
For a straightforward retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what will be returned and how to choose the request. The main gaps are the undocumented sessionId parameter and lack of precedence/error behavior, but the core operational semantics are complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is only 33% (only url has a schema description). The description compensates partially by explaining that id comes from net_list and url is a substring match, which adds real meaning. However, sessionId is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a significant gap for one of the three parameters.
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 'Fetch' and resource 'one network request in full', enumerates the contents (headers, request body, response status/headers/body), and explains how to identify it (id or url substring). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like net_list or net_pending, which list or filter requests rather than retrieve full detail.
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 tells the agent how to specify the target ('by id (from net_list) or a url substring'), which implies a workflow of listing first then fetching details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the identification guidance provides clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.