Retrieve full request and response bodies for a captured HTTP payload using its .bin path. Enables complete inspection of traffic for debugging or analysis.
Deep-dives into a specific HTTP payload by fetching its full request/response bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The physical `.bin` path (e.g. `1234_req.bin`) discovered from previews. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It says 'fetching' (read operation) and 'full request/response bodies' (binary content), but doesn't disclose size limits, whether the payload is returned inline or as a file path, or any authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely returns large binary blobs.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action. No wasted words, though the phrase 'deep-dives into a specific HTTP payload' is slightly colorful for a tool description.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and binary payload retrieval, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned binary payload looks like, sizes, or how to work with it. The parameter schema covers the input fully, but the behavioral and output expectations are unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% and there is only 1 parameter. The schema already documents that path is the physical .bin path discovered from previews. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource: fetching full request/response bodies for a specific HTTP payload. The concept of 'deep-dive into a payload' is clear, but 'payload' is somewhat jargon-y and it doesn't distinguish clearly from siblings like get_captured_request or search_traffic_previews that also deal with HTTP 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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for fetching binary bodies that previews don't contain, but it doesn't state when to use this vs get_captured_request or search_traffic_previews. An agent must infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.