Debug network issues by exporting all captured requests, responses, headers, POST data, and WebSocket frames to a structured JSON file.
Export all captured network requests, responses, headers, POST data, and WebSocket frames to a structured JSON file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Absolute or relative file path to save traffic dump | traffic_dump.json |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what is written but not whether the file is overwritten or appended, whether it requires an active capture session, whether it blocks on in-flight requests, or what permissions/filesystem restrictions apply. For a tool that writes a potentially large file to disk, these omissions leave real operational gaps.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb comes first and the enumerated payload follows. It is well-sized, losing a point only because the terseness leaves room that no additional useful sentence fills.
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 one-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core payload adequately, but it omits prerequisites (must traffic be recorded first?), file-overwrite behavior, and how it relates to the sibling traffic-reading tools. It is minimum-viable rather than complete.
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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute or relative file path to save traffic dump'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the path format beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage is appropriate.
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 (Export) and enumerates exactly what is exported (requests, responses, headers, POST data, WebSocket frames) plus the output format (structured JSON file). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like browser_network_requests or browser_websocket_messages, which an agent browsing this family would reasonably confuse it with.
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 phrase 'all captured' hints that traffic must be captured beforehand, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no condition for choosing this over browsing traffic via browser_network_requests, and no note on whether it should be called before or after navigation. The agent is left to infer invocation timing entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.