Lists available asciinema recordings so AI agents can locate and review Neovim tmux session captures.
List available asciinema recordings
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": "nvim_recordings"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the list is remote or local, what format it returns, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or whether authentication is needed. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without waste. Appropriate size for a simple listing tool.
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 no parameter details, the description is too thin. It should at least indicate what a 'recording' is in this context (e.g., asciinema files in a workspace) and what the output looks like, or how it relates to sibling tools like nvim_play.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not contradict this.
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?
States a specific verb 'List' and resource 'asciinema recordings', which is clear enough on its own. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like nvim_play or nvim_cat, which likely involve recordings. The purpose is understandable but boundary with siblings is left implicit.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. It does not say when to call this versus nvim_play (which may play a recording) or other sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.