Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Swipium

Swipium

by GeroPalombo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Record the screen

qa_screen_record

Records Android emulator or iOS simulator screens to MP4 during QA sessions. Start, check status, or stop a consent-gated recording and retain only failing runs when needed.

Instructions

Record the screen to an mp4 artifact: start (consent-gated; avoid password/OTP screens), status, stop. save:"on_failure" keeps only failing runs. One recording per session; Android stops after ~3 min.

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "qa_screen_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saveNostart: always (default) | on_failure.
actionYes
failedNostop with on_failure: true keeps the video.
approveNo
consentIdNo
sessionIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). Beyond that, the description discloses the consent gate, the mp4 artifact output, the one-recording-per-session limit, and the ~3 minute Android cap, which materially change how an agent plans around this call. It stops short of saying what start/stop return (e.g., artifact identifiers) or how to retrieve the resulting mp4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is front-loaded and compressed into three short clauses covering actions, save mode, and limits, with almost no filler. The telegraphic notation ('save:"on_failure"') is slightly cryptic on first read but is decodable against the schema enums.

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?

For a six-parameter, multi-action, stateful tool with no output schema, the description covers the action lifecycle, the consent prerequisite, the retention mode, and the platform duration limit. Missing pieces are return values/artifact handles and any indication of how status reports progress, which are modest gaps for this complexity.

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 only 33%, so the description carries real weight: it explains that 'save' governs whether all runs or only failing runs are kept, and 'consent-gated' points at the consentId/approve pair. However, neither 'approve' nor 'consentId' is defined, and the interaction between 'failed' and the on_failure save mode is only partly implied by the phrase 'keeps only failing runs.'

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Record the screen to an mp4 artifact') and enumerates the three action modes it supports (start/status/stop), so an agent immediately knows what the tool produces. It does not contrast itself with any sibling, but no sibling in the listed catalog performs screen recording, so disambiguation matters less here.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It supplies clear operational context: recording is consent-gated, password/OTP screens should be avoided, only one recording is permitted per session, and Android recordings stop after roughly three minutes. These are real constraints rather than a general 'use when you want to record' statement; only an explicit statement of the scenario that should trigger recording is absent.

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