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

py-har-mcp

by wdvipa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_urls_methods

Lists URL and HTTP method combinations from HAR files to identify endpoints accessed. Optionally accepts a specific HAR file, otherwise uses the loaded HAR.

Instructions

列出 HAR 中访问过的所有 URL 与 HTTP 方法组合。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_urls_methods"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNo可选 HAR 文件来源。为空时使用 `load_har` 已加载的默认 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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only says what the tool lists but does not mention whether it requires a previously loaded HAR, what happens if none is loaded, or whether it is a safe read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, containing no extraneous words or redundant details.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, complete schema coverage, and an output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states what the tool returns (URL and method combinations). However, it lacks any guidance on when to use this tool relative to its siblings, preventing a perfect score.

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 schema description covers the single 'source' parameter fully, explaining its optionality, default value, and behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema provides complete semantics, so 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 uses a specific verb '列出' (list) and clearly identifies the resource as 'URL 与 HTTP 方法组合' (URL and HTTP method combinations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_request_ids or get_domain_stats, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_har or get_status_code_stats. The intended usage is implied by the purpose, but no clear context or exclusions are given.

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