Reads common or API-specific pipeline state at a given capture event to inspect graphics pipeline configuration and debug rendering issues.
Read common pipeline state or one API-specific top-level state section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| capture_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 only implies a read via the verb 'Read.' It says nothing about permissions, whether the state is live or frozen at the event, or any error/edge behavior, leaving significant gaps.
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 with no filler. The only cost is that the alternative clause is dense jargon rather than plain language, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with zero parameter coverage, no annotations, and no explanation of the section concept, the description is too thin for a 3-parameter tool whose optional 'section' argument drives meaningfully different results.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet event_id and capture_id are never mentioned. It only hints at the 'section' parameter by referencing 'one API-specific top-level state section,' without listing valid section names or explaining the default null behavior.
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 clear verb (Read) and resource (pipeline state), and distinguishes between 'common pipeline state' and 'one API-specific top-level state section.' However, the jargon 'common' vs 'API-specific top-level state section' is not explained, so the exact scope remains fuzzy for an agent unfamiliar with the API.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_event, inspect_event, or get_capture_summary, and no indication of when the optional 'section' argument should be supplied versus omitted. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.