Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Burp Suite for AI Agent

Burp Suite for AI Agent

by whoismemas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

burp_requests

Retrieve recent HTTP requests captured by Burp Suite, filtered by method or URL substring, to analyze traffic and feed into AI workflows.

Instructions

List recent HTTP requests captured from Burp (most-recent first). Returns id, method, url, and status for each captured request.

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": "burp_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number to return (default 50)
methodNoFilter to a single HTTP method (GET, POST, PUT, etc.)
url_containsNoFilter to requests whose URL contains this substring

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (listing), ordering, and return fields. While it does not mention rate limits or side effects, the behavior is clearly a safe read operation, which is adequate for a list tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, return fields, ordering, and filter hints. It does not detail the output structure, but the listed fields suffice. Minor gap: no mention of pagination beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it restates the return fields but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Baseline score 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 the action ('List'), the resource ('recent HTTP requests captured from Burp'), and the ordering ('most-recent first'). It also specifies the return fields (id, method, url, status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like burp_request_detail which likely returns full request details.

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 usage as a list tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like burp_request_detail. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided, so the guidance is only implied through context.

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