Page through all vertex and instance inputs and decoded attributes, including UVs, for a RenderDoc capture event. Use cursor/limit pagination to inspect mesh data.
Page through every vertex/instance input and decoded attribute, including UVs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | 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 burden. It discloses that results are paginated (a real behavioral trait) and that it returns 'decoded' attributes, but says nothing about permissions, whether the capture must be open, result volume, or ordering semantics.
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 or redundancy; the pagination behavior is stated first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the amount of unexplained surface area.
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 annotation coverage, zero parameter descriptions, and no usage conditions, an agent lacks enough context to invoke this confidently. For a tool requiring capture_id and event_id, more framing is needed.
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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: event_id, capture_id, limit, and cursor are never explained, nor is the relationship between event_id and the vertex data requested. The mention of UVs describes the payload, not any parameter.
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 ('Page through') and resource ('every vertex/instance input and decoded attribute, including UVs'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_constant_buffer or get_shader. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative tool.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as inspect_event or list_constant_buffers, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., that a capture must be open). The required capture_id/event_id are only visible in the schema, not framed as usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.