Skip to main content
Glama

renderdoc_analyze_draw_call

Analyze a specific draw call to examine input/output resources, shaders, and state for graphics debugging in RenderDoc captures.

Instructions

Perform detailed analysis of a specific draw call including input/output resources, shaders, and state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYesThe event ID of the draw call to analyze.

Implementation Reference

  • Tool registration defining the renderdoc_analyze_draw_call tool schema with name, description, and inputSchema (requires event_id parameter)
    Tool(
        name="renderdoc_analyze_draw_call",
        description="Perform detailed analysis of a specific draw call including input/output resources, shaders, and state.",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "event_id": {
                    "type": "integer",
                    "description": "The event ID of the draw call to analyze.",
                },
            },
            "required": ["event_id"],
        },
    ),
  • Handler implementation that checks if capture is open, validates event_id parameter, and returns stub message indicating functionality is not yet implemented
    elif name == "renderdoc_analyze_draw_call":
        if not wrapper.current_file:
            return [TextContent(type="text", text="Error: No capture is currently open.")]
    
        event_id = arguments.get("event_id")
        if event_id is None:
            return [TextContent(type="text", text="Error: event_id is required")]
    
        # Draw call analysis requires more complex implementation
        return [TextContent(type="text", text="Draw call analysis is not yet implemented.")]
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs 'detailed analysis' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., computational cost, output format, or side effects). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity, as it lacks details on behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and lists key components without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity implied by 'detailed analysis' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns (e.g., a report, structured data) or behavioral traits like performance impact, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool use by an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'event_id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as how to obtain valid event IDs or format requirements. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('perform detailed analysis') and the target ('a specific draw call'), with specific components listed ('input/output resources, shaders, and state'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'renderdoc_get_draw_calls' (which likely lists draw calls) by focusing on analysis rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open capture), exclusions, or related tools like 'renderdoc_get_draw_calls' for selecting event IDs, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Hengle/Renderdoc-Mcp2'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server