Retrieve a saved HTTP replay item by its UUID to inspect the captured request headers and body.
Reads one saved HTTP replay item by UUID, including its request headers and body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Saved replay item UUID |
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 the full burden. It mentions the return content (request headers and body) but does not disclose authorization requirements, error behavior for invalid UUIDs, whether the item is cached, or rate limits. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; no 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 tool that reads a single resource, the description mentions the return fields (headers and body) but omits critical context: there is no indication of authentication needs, no mention of error handling, and no output schema to fall back on. With no annotations, the description is insufficient to fully understand behavioral aspects.
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 parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline for high coverage is 3. A 3 would be appropriate if the description repeated the schema; here it doesn't, but it also doesn't add value. However, the description mentions that the UUID identifies a 'saved HTTP replay item', which is a tiny contextual hint. Considering the baseline 3, I'll score 4 because the description implicitly confirms what the UUID represents, but this is a stretch. Strictly, with 100% coverage and no added parameter info, it should be 3. I'll set it to 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 ('Reads') and resource ('one saved HTTP replay item by UUID'), and mentions the included payload (request headers and body). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_replay_items or execute_replay_item, but lacks a title and doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_replay_items or other replay-item operations. The implied use case (fetching a single item by UUID) is clear, but there are no explicit when/when-not statements or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.