capture_list_savedList previously saved capture directories, including in-memory records and results under the captures root, so you can locate past browser-devtools captures.
列出之前保存过的抓取目录（含内存记录与 captures 根目录下的结果）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rootDir | No | 要扫描的根目录，缺省 <cwd>/captures |
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 burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral fact – that results come from in-memory records as well as the captures root directory – but it never states that this is a read-only operation, nor describes return format, ordering, or whether the scan can be slow.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No waste, though it is arguably too terse to earn a 5 for a 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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry return-shape expectations. It says what gets listed but not what the agent receives back (paths? IDs? metadata?), leaving a modest but real gap for a retrieval tool.
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 coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema already documents rootDir including its default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: '列出...保存过的抓取目录', and clarifies scope as both in-memory records and results under the captures root dir. It is distinguishable from capture_save (which persists data), though it never explicitly names a sibling.
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 statement of when to use this versus capture_status, resources_list, or capture_save. The agent gets a description of what is listed but no trigger condition or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.