Get complete details for a single network flow, including URL, query params, headers, request and response bodies, latency, and a ready-to-run curl command.
Full detail for one flow: URL, query params, both header sets, both bodies, latency, and a ready-to-run equivalent curl command.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flow_id | Yes | ||
| body_max | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully details what the tool returns e.g., both header sets, both bodies, latency, curl command, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or disclose constraints like body_max truncation or potential errors.
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?
The description is a single tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs concrete useful specifics. Every listed item earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits any guidance on body_max and does not explicitly route the agent toward this tool versus siblings Morgue. It is adequate for a simple inspect operation but has clear gaps around parameter behavior and when to use it.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies flow_id selects the flow to inspect, but body_max is completely unexplained and its relationship to 'both bodies' is unclear. The agent cannot infer the significance of body_max from the description.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full detail for one flow.' It then enumerates the exact contents returned (URL, query params, headers, bodies, latency, curl command), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like list_flows, flow_stats, or diff_flows.
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 phrase 'Full detail for one flow' implies this is for deep inspection of a single flow rather than listing or comparing, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over siblings or provides any exclusion criteria. The usage context is clear but only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.