Skip to main content
Glama

Get Network Requests

get_network_requests

Fetch recent network requests from a browser tab to discover hidden APIs and inspect XHR/fetch calls; pair request IDs with get_response_body to read responses.

Instructions

Recent requests by the page. Discover hidden APIs (then tls_fetch to skip DOM). Pair w/ get_response_body by request_id.

Ex: get_network_requests('t0') → {"_untrusted":true,"requests":[{"id":"...","url":"...","method":"GET","type":"XHR"}]}

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tab_id": "<tab_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_network_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_nNo
tab_idYes
force_refreshNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully shows an example return payload and the `_untrusted` flag, but it does not explain `force_refresh`, whether calls trigger network activity, limits, or other operational behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded, and free of filler. The example and sibling references are compact and useful rather than redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return example is helpful but not strictly required. However, with zero annotation coverage and no schema parameter descriptions, the missing explanations for `max_n` and `force_refresh` leave gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are three parameters. The example implicitly shows `tab_id`, but `max_n` and `force_refresh` are neither described nor explained, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource, recent page requests, and hints at the tool's role in API discovery. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by naming `tls_fetch` and `get_response_body`, though 'by the page' is slightly vague compared with the tab-scoped schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete usage direction: discover hidden APIs, use `tls_fetch` to skip DOM, and pair with `get_response_body` by request_id. It lacks explicit exclusions versus related tools such as `route_captures` or HAR tools, so not a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.