Retrieve historical npz capture records with duration, sample rate, dropped samples, and file path, sorted newest first.
列出历史采集(npz 元数据表:时长/速率/丢样/路径),按时间倒序。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_captures"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose two behavioral traits: the output is an npz metadata table and results are ordered newest-first. However, it says nothing about pagination, filtering, auth, or volume, which matters for a listing operation over accumulated history.
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 whose parenthetical puts the return content inline, followed by the ordering constraint. Every clause earns its place with no waste.
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 trivial no-arg listing tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by naming the metadata fields the table contains and stating the sort order. What is missing is only speculative extras like pagination or row limits.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter discussion.
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 (列出/list), a specific resource (历史采集/historical captures), and even enumerates the returned metadata fields (duration/rate/dropped samples/path). This distinguishes it from status-oriented siblings like get_capture_status and get_capture_status, but it does not explicitly name those 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is for browsing past captures, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as get_capture_status or analyze_capture. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.