Read a single buffered network request by its 1-based index to inspect captured browser traffic for a page or session.
Read one buffered network request by its 1-based index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | ||
| pageId | No | Defaults to the active page | |
| sessionId | No | Defaults to the active session |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.10.24Input schema / properties / pageId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Stable page ID; defaults to the session active page"New value: +"Defaults to the active page"Input schema / properties / sessionId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional session ID; defaults to this MCP client active session"New value: +"Defaults to the active session"v2026.8.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the request is 'buffered' (implying bounded/in-memory storage) but says nothing about buffer lifetime, expiry, or what happens when an index is out of range.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so conciseness itself is a strength.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for telling the agent what a request record contains (URL, method, status, headers/body?) and whether the buffer must be populated first. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict the result of a call.
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 67%: pageId and sessionId are documented in the schema, while index carries only 'minimum: 1'. The description's '1-based' confirms the indexing convention that the schema only hints at, but adds nothing about the page/session defaults or valid index ranges.
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 ('read') and resource ('one buffered network request'), plus the indexing convention. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling nex_browser_network_requests (list vs. single), but never names that sibling to make the split explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: the 'buffered' and 'by index' phrasing suggests this is the detail-fetch step after listing requests, but the description never says 'use after nex_browser_network_requests' or states prerequisites such as the buffer being populated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.