list_recordingsList recordings from a ScreenApp team, specifying team ID, limit, and offset to paginate results. Use to retrieve available recordings for review or download.
List recordings from the last active ScreenApp team or a specified team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| teamId | No | ScreenApp team ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral nuance of team selection (last active vs. specified), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or result format, which would enhance transparency. The added team-scoping detail justifies a 3.
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?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.
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 straightforward list operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed and the team scoping option. It does not explicitly mention pagination or ordering, but the limit/offset parameters are already documented in the schema, and the tool's simplicity means the description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so all three parameters (limit, offset, teamId) are already documented with descriptions. The description's mention of 'specified team' reinforces teamId but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Per baseline rules, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the action (list recordings) and the resource (ScreenApp recordings), with an explicit scope: 'last active ScreenApp team or a specified team.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recording (single item) and search_recordings (search functionality), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 usage context by mentioning team scoping (last active vs. specified), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_recordings or get_recording. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.