Skip to main content
Glama
mako10k

Web Proxy MCP Server

by mako10k

proxy_get_traffic_log

Retrieve captured HTTP/HTTPS traffic logs with filtering by domain, method, time, or result count for monitoring and analysis.

Instructions

Get captured traffic log with filtering options

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNoFilter by specific domain
methodNoFilter by HTTP method (GET, POST, etc.)
limitNoMaximum number of entries to return
sinceNoISO timestamp to get entries since

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler for the proxy_get_traffic_log tool. It retrieves filtered traffic entries from the TrafficAnalyzer and formats them into a readable text log.
    case 'proxy_get_traffic_log':
      const entries = this.trafficAnalyzer.getEntries({
        domain: args.domain,
        method: args.method,
        limit: args.limit,
        since: args.since ? new Date(args.since) : undefined
      });
    
      const logText = entries.map(entry => 
        `[${entry.timestamp}] ${entry.method} ${entry.url} -> ${entry.statusCode} (${entry.responseTime}ms)`
      ).join('\n');
    
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: `📈 Traffic Log (${entries.length} entries)\n\n${logText || 'No traffic captured'}`
        }]
      };
  • Tool definition including name, description, and input schema for validation.
    proxy_get_traffic_log: {
      name: "proxy_get_traffic_log",
      description: "Get captured traffic log with filtering options",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          domain: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Filter by specific domain"
          },
          method: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Filter by HTTP method (GET, POST, etc.)"
          },
          limit: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Maximum number of entries to return",
            default: 50
          },
          since: {
            type: "string",
            description: "ISO timestamp to get entries since"
          }
        }
      }
    },
  • Core helper method that filters, sorts, and limits traffic entries based on the tool parameters. Called by the handler.
    getEntries(options = {}) {
      let filtered = [...this.entries];
    
      // Filter by domain
      if (options.domain) {
        filtered = filtered.filter(entry => 
          entry.domain.includes(options.domain)
        );
      }
    
      // Filter by method
      if (options.method) {
        filtered = filtered.filter(entry => 
          entry.method === options.method.toUpperCase()
        );
      }
    
      // Filter by time
      if (options.since) {
        const sinceTime = new Date(options.since).getTime();
        filtered = filtered.filter(entry => 
          new Date(entry.timestamp).getTime() >= sinceTime
        );
      }
    
      // Sort by timestamp (newest first)
      filtered.sort((a, b) => 
        new Date(b.timestamp).getTime() - new Date(a.timestamp).getTime()
      );
    
      // Limit results
      if (options.limit) {
        filtered = filtered.slice(0, options.limit);
      }
    
      return filtered;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not stated), what the return format is (e.g., list of log entries), pagination handling (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get captured traffic log') and adds a useful qualifier ('with filtering options'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., log entry structure), behavioral constraints (e.g., read-only nature, server state requirements), and differentiation from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively alongside others.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (domain, method, limit, since). The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'filtering options' generically, which the schema already covers with individual filter descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but adds no extra value.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('captured traffic log'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like proxy_analyze_traffic (which likely analyzes rather than retrieves) and proxy_clear_traffic_log (which clears rather than gets). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from proxy_export_har (which might export similar data in HAR format), keeping it from a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like proxy_export_har for exporting logs or proxy_analyze_traffic for analysis, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., whether the proxy server must be running). Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mako10k/mcp-web-proxy'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server