Retrieve a bound shader's reflection, disassembly, source, or raw bytes in pages from a RenderDoc capture to inspect pipeline state.
Read a bound shader's reflection, disassembly, source, or raw bytes in pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | Yes | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| length | No | ||
| content | No | reflection | |
| event_id | Yes | ||
| capture_id | Yes | ||
| source_file_index | No | ||
| disassembly_target | No |
| 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 usefully discloses that output is paged, but says nothing about read safety, required capture/event binding, error modes, or how cursor/length control traversal.
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. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for an 8-parameter tool, which slightly reduces its structural value.
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?
For an 8-parameter tool with 3 required params, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description does far too little. The existence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but the input semantics and usage context remain substantially under-specified.
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% across 8 parameters. The description only indirectly touches 'content' (reflection/disassembly/source/raw bytes) and 'in pages' (cursor/length); it says nothing about stage, event_id, capture_id, source_file_index, or disassembly_target, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
The description states a specific verb (Read) and resource (a bound shader) and enumerates what can be retrieved: reflection, disassembly, source, or raw bytes. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not contrast itself with siblings like get_constant_buffer or get_vertex_data, so an agent gets the 'what' but not the sibling boundary.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. 'in pages' hints at a paginated workflow but gives no condition for choosing this tool over the adjacent get_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.