Skip to main content
Glama

Har Dump

har_dump

Export recorded HAR traffic from a tab: write a full, byte-exact JSON file to disk or return an inline, size-capped summary with configurable body and entry limits.

Instructions

Return recorded HAR. With path, write full JSON to disk (no truncation, no _compact) and return summary. Without path, returns the HAR inline through _compact w/ tunable max_str (per body) and max_list / max_entries (entry count).

For full-fidelity inline dump, raise both caps OR write to disk. Disk write is byte-exact.

Ex: har_dump('t0') → {"_untrusted":true,"har":{...},"entries":42} Ex: har_dump('t0', path='/tmp/session.har', clear=True) → {"wrote":"/tmp/session.har","bytes":98231,"entries":42,"cleared":true} Ex: har_dump('t0', max_str=50000) # don't truncate JSON bodies up to 50KB

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": "har_dump"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
clearNo
tab_idYes
max_strNo
max_listNo
max_entriesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses important behavior beyond schema: disk writes are byte-exact and untruncated, inline output uses `_compact` with tunable caps, and full fidelity requires raising caps or writing to disk. With no annotations, it carries the burden well, though it does not explicitly state that `clear=True` clears the recording after dumping.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then explains output modes and examples without wasted prose. The examples earn their place by showing return shapes and parameter effects.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain every return field, and it covers the main behavioral modes and truncation controls. Minor gaps remain around `clear` side effects and `tab_id` semantics.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `path`, `max_str`, `max_list`, `max_entries`, and demonstrates `clear=True` via example, but `tab_id` is only shown positionally and `clear` is not explicitly defined in prose.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: "Return recorded HAR." It clearly implies a dump/read operation rather than recording, replaying, or clearing HAR data, and explains the disk vs inline modes.

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?

Gives clear usage guidance for choosing `path` (write full JSON to disk) vs no `path` (inline compact output) and how to achieve full-fidelity output. It does not explicitly compare against siblings like `har_replay_load` or `har_clear`, but the internal usage choices are well covered.

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