nrly

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_capture

Retrieve paginated activation values for a specified run, case, and target, returning each value with its capture position and invocation metadata.

Instructions

Page stored activation values with their capture position and invocation metadata.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>",
      "case_id": "<case_id>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "get_capture"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`run_id`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`case_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Page' implies pagination but says nothing about default page size, total counts, ordering, error behavior for a missing capture, or whether the read is cheap or expensive — all of which matter for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it leans toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, one sentence is not enough to call this correctly. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but the input contract and pagination behavior remain opaque.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. run_id, case_id, and target are completely unexplained, and limit/offset receive only the implicit hint from the word 'Page'.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Page') plus a specific resource ('stored activation values') and states what accompanies them (capture position, invocation metadata). An agent can tell this is a retrieval tool for captured activations, though it does not differentiate the resource from adjacent siblings like get_sample or get_inspection.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_samples, get_inspection, or get_capture-style alternatives. Nothing states prerequisites, such as whether the run/case must have completed or whether a capture must exist first.

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