Skip to main content
Glama

List captured requests

mp_capture_list

Lists recent captured WeChat Mini Program requests with URL, method, and sign fields from a JSONL capture file, with optional file path, result limit, and URL filter.

Instructions

查看当前抓包文件内容。返回最近的请求概览(URL/method/sign字段)。可指定 capture_file 路径,默认读取最新的抓包文件。

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": "mp_capture_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo最多返回条数 (默认 50)
url_filterNo只显示 URL 包含此关键词的请求
capture_fileNoJSONL 文件路径 (默认最新)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read ('查看'), that the result is limited to an overview of recent requests rather than full payloads, and that the file defaults to the latest capture. However, it says nothing about failure behavior when no capture file exists, ordering or recency semantics, or how limit interacts with results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The parenthetical field list is efficient. Minor deduction for slightly fragmented structure rather than a single coherent statement.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape; it only names three fields and calls the result an 'overview,' leaving the rest of each entry's structure and the meaning of 'recent' (ordering, window) ambiguous. For a simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters this is adequate, but short of complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention that capture_file can be specified and defaults to the latest file merely restates the schema's '(默认最新)' annotation and adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: view the contents of the current capture file and return an overview of recent requests. It identifies the exact fields returned (URL/method/sign), which distinguishes this tool from the capture-control siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so the definition is clear but lacks direct differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The tool's usage is only implied: reading a capture file, with a default of the latest file. The description gives no explicit statement of when to use this tool rather than mp_capture_start, mp_capture_stop, or mp_analyze, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites. That makes it minimally adequate, but an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.