get_networkFetch captured HTTP requests and responses from a running Flutter app on demand, most recent first, to debug Dio or package:http network issues.
HTTP requests/responses captured via dart:io profiling (covers Dio & package:http). Fetches the latest profile on demand, then returns completed requests most recent first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.21.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it fetches a fresh profile on demand (a live capture, not a passive read of cached state) and returns only completed requests, most recent first. The main gap is that it never mentions the default page size or that only a bounded window of requests is returned.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the data is and where it comes from, then the fetch/return behavior. No filler, no repetition of the title, 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 read-only inspector with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: data source, on-demand capture, and result ordering/filtering. It stops short of sketching what a returned request record looks like or how the limit bounds the result set, which an agent would want given the absent output schema.
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 one parameter (limit) and schema description coverage is 0% – the schema supplies type, default 30, and max 200 but no explanation of what is being limited. The description never mentions limit at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. The name is largely self-evident, which keeps this above 1, but the description contributes nothing here.
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 names a specific resource (HTTP requests/responses) and discloses the capture mechanism (dart:io profiling, covering Dio & package:http), which makes the tool's data source unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_logs or get_timeline, but the domain is clear enough to select it confidently.
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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs network traffic, but there is no 'use this when / instead of X' guidance and no mention of prerequisites or timing relative to other diagnostics. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.