Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
py-har-mcp

py-har-mcp

by wdvipa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_request_ids

Retrieve request IDs from HAR entries that match a specified URL and HTTP method.

Instructions

根据指定 URL 与 HTTP 方法，返回匹配的请求 ID 列表。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "get_request_ids"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes要过滤的完整请求 URL。通常应与 HAR 中记录的 URL 完全一致。
methodYes要过滤的 HTTP 方法，例如 GET、POST、PUT、DELETE。
sourceNo可选 HAR 文件来源。为空时使用默认 HAR；传入时直接分析指定 HAR 文件。

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a read-only filtering operation with no harmful side effects, but it does not mention edge cases such as no matches, exact matching rules, or performance implications.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without any extraneous words or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that an output schema exists and the parameter descriptions are complete, this short description is sufficient for a simple list-returning tool. It could mention the optional source parameter, but the schema already covers that detail, making the overall context adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters, so the description adds little value beyond restating the roles of URL and method. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool returns a list of request IDs filtered by URL and HTTP method. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_request_details, which likely focuses on the details of a single request.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool should be used when you have a specific URL and HTTP method and need to find the corresponding request IDs. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings or provide any exclusions or alternative tool references.

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