Playwright MCP

browser_network_request

Read-only

Inspect one captured network request by index to get full headers and body details or a specific part for debugging and analysis.

Instructions

Returns full details (headers and body) of a single network request, or a single part if part is set. Use the number from browser_network_requests.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "browser_network_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`part`	No	Return only this part of the request. Omit to return full details.
`index`	Yes	1-based index of the request, as printed by browser_network_requests.
`filename`	No	Filename to save the result to. If not provided, output is returned as text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.77Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns headers and body and can filter to a part, but does not elaborate on output structure or edge cases. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no redundant wording. The main purpose is front-loaded, the part option is explained, and the source of the index is given. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the return type (full details or part) and the index source. It lacks explicit output format details, but the enum values for 'part' are self-explanatory.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds critical value by explaining that 'index' comes from browser_network_requests, which is not in the schema, enhancing clarity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns full details of a single network request, with an optional 'part' parameter to narrow down. It distinguishes from the sibling tool browser_network_requests by referencing its index, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The instruction 'Use the number from browser_network_requests' explicitly guides when to use this tool—after obtaining a listing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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