Retrieve full request headers, POST payload, and response body (JSON/HTML) for a given request ID from captured browser network traffic.
Retrieve full request details (headers, POST payload) and response body (JSON/HTML) for a specific request ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | The request ID from browser_network_requests |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned data categories (headers, POST payload, response body in JSON/HTML), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation, mention permission requirements, rate limits, error behavior for invalid IDs, or whether sensitive data may be exposed.
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?
It is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every phrase adds useful detail without redundancy or filler.
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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key return contents and source of the ID. It is nearly complete but could mention failure modes or data size considerations, which are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 100%, so the request_id parameter and its source are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the scope ('for a specific request ID') but does not add syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides; this meets the baseline of 3.
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 states a specific verb (Retrieve), a specific resource (full request details and response body), and a scoping condition (for a specific request ID). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling browser_network_requests by focusing on one request ID rather than listing traffic.
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 implies when to use the tool: after obtaining a request ID from browser_network_requests, as also noted in the schema. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other network inspection needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.