Lists recent captures newest first. Filter by tool, session, or project root, and set a row limit to review stored events or debug activity.
List recent captures (newest first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (default 50). | |
| tool_name | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| project_root | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes one real behavioral fact beyond that (results are ordered newest first), but says nothing about default row counts, pagination, or what a capture record contains.
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 zero wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool whose filtering capabilities go unstated.
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 a read-only list tool with no output schema, the annotations do carry the safety burden, but the definition still omits the three filter parameters and any return-shape or pagination detail. An agent could call it, but not correctly scope it.
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 coverage is only 25% — just the limit parameter is documented — yet the description mentions no parameters at all. The three filter parameters (tool_name, session_id, project_root) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, so an agent cannot learn from this definition that listing can be scoped at all.
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 (List) and resource (captures) plus a meaningful ordering guarantee (newest first). However, it draws no boundary against the many sibling read tools (capture_search, capture_get, capture_aggregate), so an agent must infer the distinction from the name 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives: capture_search for filtered queries, capture_get for a single item, capture_aggregate for rollups. Usage is only implied by 'recent', leaving the agent to guess when this beats capture_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.