List capture actions from a RenderDoc capture, filtering by kind or query and paginating with a cursor to inspect draw and dispatch events.
List capture actions with filtering and bounded cursor pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| flatten | No | ||
| capture_id | Yes | ||
| parent_event_id | 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Bounded cursor pagination" hints at paging behavior, but nothing is said about ordering, auth/permission needs, default limits, or what flatten actually does to results.
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 compact sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that brevity shades into under-specification.
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 explained, but a 7-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations needs far more description than one sentence. An agent cannot know what kind, flatten, or parent_event_id mean before calling.
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 7 parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at filtering and cursor pagination. Key parameters like kind, flatten, parent_event_id, and capture_id are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 specific verb and resource ("List capture actions") plus the scoping mode (filtering, cursor pagination). It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_event, inspect_event, or list_constant_buffers, so an agent can't fully route between lookup tools from this text alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the words "list capture actions."
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.