Retrieve the response body for a captured network request by request ID to inspect API responses. Pair with network_requests to identify the request first.
Get the response body for a captured request id. Use network_requests first to identify the request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tabId | Yes | ||
| requestId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-alpha.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get' without specifying what happens if the request ID is invalid, whether the body is returned as raw text or base64, potential size limits, or error handling. The tool's behavior is largely opaque beyond the basic action.
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 two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and includes the critical usage hint without any fluff, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not clarify the return type, error cases (e.g., missing request), or any data format expectations. The agent would be left guessing about how to handle the response, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions 'requestId' indirectly via 'captured request id' but does not explicitly state that requestId is the identifier from network_requests. The 'tabId' parameter is completely unexplained; the agent would have to infer its purpose from the name alone, which is insufficient.
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 clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (response body) for a given request ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_requests (which lists requests) by focusing on the body of a specific request, and the phrase 'captured request id' implies the tool consumes an ID from a prior capture step.
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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use network_requests first to identify the request', which provides a clear prerequisite and usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the instruction is sufficient to guide the agent in the common flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.