Read buffered network requests from an automation session to inspect page traffic and debug web activity. Clear the buffer optionally.
Read network requests buffered by this automation session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: whether reads are non-destructive, whether the buffer is captured continuously from page load, what a returned request record contains, or that the 'clear' parameter destroys buffered data. An agent cannot tell the safety profile or side effects from this sentence.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. It is efficient but too thin to be genuinely well-structured for a tool with a destructive-adjacent flag.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain what a network request entry looks like, whether ordering/pagination applies, and what 'clear' does. None of this is present, leaving the tool under-described for a 3-parameter inspection API.
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%, and the undocumented 'clear' boolean is the most consequential parameter — the description never mentions it or its destructive effect on the buffer. pageId/sessionId defaults are covered by the schema, so the description adds nothing beyond it.
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 (network requests) with scope qualifier 'buffered by this automation session'. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling nex_browser_network_request (singular), which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus nex_browser_network_request, nex_browser_console_messages, or server-side tooling. There are no prerequisites or preconditions given (e.g. must be connected to a session with buffering enabled).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.