Filter and retrieve network requests buffered from Firefox, matching URL, status, or MIME by regex to analyze web traffic.
Network requests buffered since the server connected: method, status, mime, url. pattern filters url/status/mime by regex.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clear | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| tabId | No | Tab id from tabs_context; omit for all tabs | |
| pattern | No |
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 full behavioral burden. It does disclose the buffer window and filterable fields, but it omits the side effect of the `clear` parameter, whether invoking the tool can mutate the buffer, default/limit behavior, or what shape the response takes. This is a significant gap for a potentially state-changing read tool.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, followed by a focused explanation of the filter parameter. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, this description is under-specified. It does not clarify return structure, buffer clearing semantics, limit defaults, or how tab filtering behaves beyond the schema snippet. An agent could call it, but not with full confidence about side effects and output.
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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains `pattern` (regex over url/status/mime) but leaves `clear` and `limit` undocumented; `tabId` has a schema description but still lacks behavioral context. The description adds value for one parameter but does not cover the others.
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 clearly identifies the resource as buffered network requests and enumerates the fields returned (method, status, mime, url), with an additional note on the pattern filter. It is distinguishable from siblings like read_console and read_page by data type, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 implied: inspect network traffic buffered since connection, optionally filtered by regex. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over read_console, read_page, or other siblings, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.