Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RenderDoc MCP

RenderDoc MCP

by LifeSugar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

open_capture

Open an allow-listed .rdc RenderDoc capture file and return a stable capture_id for analyzing draw events, pipeline state, and shaders.

Instructions

Open one allow-listed .rdc file and return a stable capture_id.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "open_capture"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one key behavioral constraint — only allow-listed .rdc files can be opened — plus the promise of a stable id. It omits error behavior for disallowed paths and lifecycle/resource implications (that a capture stays open until close_capture).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, with zero filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter opener with an output schema (so the capture_id return need not be explained), the description covers what it does and its main constraint. Adding the close_capture lifecycle or error conditions would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it adds that 'path' points to an allow-listed .rdc file, which is real meaning beyond 'string/Path'. It still gives no format, relative-vs-absolute, or example detail.

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 (open) plus a precise resource ('one allow-listed .rdc file'), and it even names the artifact it produces (capture_id). It does not explicitly contrast with close_capture or the inspection siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite/ordering guidance (e.g., that other capture tools need the returned capture_id, or that close_capture must follow). Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'open'.

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