Skip to main content
Glama
paramount-engineering

Roku Dev Studio MCP Server

by paramount-engineering
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Network Inspector: Find in Content

network_inspector_find
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search captured Roku network traffic—request/response URLs, headers, and bodies—for any text or regex. Find which requests contain a session ID, error string, or JSON field across all captured traffic.

Instructions

Search the FULL content of captured transactions — request/response URL, headers, and bodies — for query, unlike network_inspector_list_events' host filter which only matches hostname/SNI/URL. This is the tool for "which request(s) contain X" (a session id, an error string, a specific JSON field/value) across the whole buffer, without paging through every event with get_event_detail. Each result carries total (match count), scopes (per-scope breakdown: url/reqHeaders/reqBody/respHeaders/respBody), and the matching event's summary (host/url/method/status) inline. query is required; scopes optionally narrows which parts are searched (omit for all); caseSensitive (default false); regex treats query as a JS regex (a dangerous/over-long pattern safely degrades to a literal search rather than erroring). device optional — omit to search every Roku with captured traffic. limit caps results (default 50, max 500). Requires Network Inspector enabled (see network_inspector_status).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax matching events to return (default 50, max 500).
queryYesRequired. Text (or regex, with `regex: true`) to search for.
regexNoTreat `query` as a JS regular expression (default false).
deviceNoOptional Roku IP or serial. Omit to search every Roku with captured traffic.
scopesNoOptional. Which parts to search: url, reqHeaders, reqBody, respHeaders, respBody. Omit for all.
caseSensitiveNoCase-sensitive match (default false).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.2

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: the result structure (total, scopes, summary), the safe degradation of dangerous/over-long regex patterns to a literal search, and the prerequisite that Network Inspector must be enabled. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a complete picture of expected behavior.

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, well-organized paragraph with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage distinction, result structure, parameter details, and a prerequisite. Every sentence carries essential information, and the structure makes it easy to scan for the key facts.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, all parameters with their defaults and interactions, the result structure, and a prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and it even explains edge-case behavior (regex degradation).

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described, but the description adds semantic context beyond the schema: it explains that scopes can be omitted to search all parts, that regex treats query as a JS regex with graceful degradation, that device defaults to all Rokus, and that limit caps results. It also clarifies the meaning of the result's scopes breakdown, which is not in the schema. This fully compensates for any gaps and enhances parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and a well-defined resource ('FULL content of captured transactions' including URL, headers, bodies), and explicitly contrasts with sibling network_inspector_list_events' host filter. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says this is the tool for 'which request(s) contain X' across the whole buffer, and contrasts with using network_inspector_list_events for host-only filtering. It also names an alternative (get_event_detail) and mentions the prerequisite that Network Inspector must be enabled, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools