Searches recent logs to find HTTP traffic matching a keyword, URL substring, or hostname, and returns previews. Use it to locate requests tied to a specific target.
Find HTTP traffic targeting specific keywords or hosts across recent logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of items to retrieve (default 50) | |
| keyword | Yes | Search term, URL substring, or Hostname |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via 'Find' and scopes it to 'recent logs', but says nothing about result caps, whether results are paged, what 'previews' contain, or any auth/scope constraints.
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 with the search scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral detail.
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 2-param search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However it never explains what a 'preview' result is or how many/which logs are considered 'recent', leaving real gaps for the agent.
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 both parameters are already documented (keyword as 'Search term, URL substring, or Hostname', limit as item count). The description's mention of 'keywords or hosts' echoes the keyword param but adds no syntax or format detail, so the 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 (Find) and resource (HTTP traffic) with a clear scope (targeting keywords or hosts across recent logs). It is easy to understand, but it does not distinguish itself from related traffic/log siblings such as get_captured_request or clear_captured_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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'across recent logs' weakly implies a recency-bounded search context, but nothing tells the agent how this differs from other traffic-retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.