Retrieve network requests for a Safari page since the inspector attached, including URL, method, status, MIME type, and failures.
Requests of the page since the inspector attached: url, method, status, mime type, failures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | index in inspector_pages; default the first page with a real address | |
| wait | No | seconds to wait for the page list, default 60 | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: results are bounded to the window since the inspector attached, implying buffered state and that prior history is unavailable. It does not say whether the call drains or preserves the buffer, how ordering works, or how results are capped.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The telegraphic, fragmentary style ('Requests of the page since...') sacrifices a little clarity for brevity, leaving the sentence grammatically incomplete.
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?
Listing the returned fields compensates somewhat for the absence of an output schema, and the attach-time scoping is stated. But with no annotations, one undocumented parameter, and no information on pagination or buffer behavior, an agent cannot fully predict the result shape or limits.
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 coverage is only 67%: 'page' and 'wait' are documented in the schema, but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The tool description itself never mentions any parameter, so it adds no meaning over the schema and leaves the limit semantics entirely undefined.
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?
It names a specific resource (the page's network requests, with the returned fields: url, method, status, mime type, failures), which clearly separates it from siblings like console_messages or inspector_raw. The phrasing is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, so it reads as a data listing rather than an action, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
The scope constraint 'since the inspector attached' implies this is a session-scoped capture buffer, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., console_messages for logs, inspector_raw for raw protocol data), and no statement about what happens if the inspector is not attached.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.