Retrieve captured speech or typed text from a session, optionally filtered by session ID, to inspect inputs and decisions.
List retained captures, optionally limited to one session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'List' conveys a non-mutating read operation and 'retained' scopes what is returned. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, retention semantics, or permission requirements, but for a simple read tool with an output schema this is a moderate gap rather than a fatal one.
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?
One short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place, making this an appropriately sized description for a simple tool.
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?
Given one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential call pattern: no arguments lists retained captures, and session_id scopes the list to one session. It doesn't unpack the meaning of 'retained' or differentiate from sibling tools, but the tool is simple enough that this is nearly complete.
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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented session_id parameter. It does so by explaining that the optional parameter limits results to one session, which adds real meaning beyond the bare type/default in the schema. It doesn't specify ID formats or confirm the no-argument behavior, but the core semantic is present.
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 the verb 'List', the resource 'retained captures', and the optional session restriction in one clear sentence. It is distinguishable from siblings by resource type, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_session or interpret_transcript, so it stops short of the top score.
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?
The description implies the tool is for enumerating retained captures and that session_id narrows results to a single session, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose list_captures over get_session or interpret_transcript, so usage direction remains largely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.