Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RenderDoc MCP

RenderDoc MCP

by LifeSugar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_constant_buffers

Paginate and inspect every shader-stage, block, and array constant-buffer group from a RenderDoc capture event to analyze shader resources.

Instructions

List every shader-stage/block/array constant-buffer group with pagination.

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": {
      "capture_id": "<capture_id>",
      "event_id": "<event_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_constant_buffers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
cursorNo
event_idYes
capture_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, required capture/event context, ordering, or failure behavior for a 4-parameter 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; the scoping detail (shader-stage/block/array) is dense but each word earns its place. It could be marginally tighter but is well structured.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the definition still omits the meaning of the required capture_id/event_id pair and any usage context for a list operation. For a tool with 0% parameter documentation, more is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at pagination (implying limit/cursor) and never explains the two required parameters, capture_id and event_id, and what they must reference.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus a precise resource scope (shader-stage/block/array constant-buffer groups), which clearly separates it from the singular sibling get_constant_buffer. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or contrasting scope, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_constant_buffer for a single buffer. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration counterpart to the singular getter.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools