Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@renderdoc-mcp Open frame.rdc and show me what's happening in the frame"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
一个精简版 RenderDoc MCP server，只聚焦一件事：从 .rdc 捕获文件里导出指定 draw call 的资源。
保留能力：
导出 VSIn mesh 数据
导出 VSOut mesh 数据
导出 shader 绑定纹理
可选导出 color/depth render target
生成 manifest，方便后续资产处理脚本读取
RenderDoc 的 Python 模块必须能被当前 Python 解释器加载。通常需要设置：
$env:RENDERDOC_MODULE_PATH = "C:\Program Files\RenderDoc\pymodules"注意：RenderDoc 的 renderdoc.pyd 必须和 Python ABI 匹配。如果 RenderDoc 安装包提供的是 Python 3.6 扩展，就需要用 Python 3.6 x64 运行 MCP。
Related MCP server: RenderDoc MCP Server
open_capture(filepath, mode="auto")：打开指定 .rdc；mode 可选 auto、background 或 foreground
open_capture_background(filepath)：通过 qrenderdoc bridge 后台加载指定 .rdc，不显示、聚焦或激活窗口；失败时不回退到前台
open_capture_at_event(filepath, event_id)：在 RenderDoc GUI 打开指定 .rdc 并聚焦 EID
focus_event(event_id)：在 RenderDoc GUI 当前捕获中聚焦 EID
Activity Log：在 RenderDoc Tools 菜单查看 Bridge 操作历史和结果
show_activity_log()：从 MCP 主动显示或前置 Activity Log 底部面板
connect_to_gui_capture()：通过 RenderDoc GUI bridge 打开当前 GUI 里的捕获
export_mesh_stage_data(...)：导出单个 mesh stage
export_event_textures(...)：导出指定 EID 的纹理
export_draw_bundle(...)：一次导出 VSIn、VSOut、纹理和 manifest
GUI 聚焦功能依赖 qrenderdoc bridge。安装或更新扩展后，需要重启 RenderDoc：
python -m renderdoc_mcp.install_bridge打开指定捕获并跳到 EID 852：
{
"filepath": "D:\\captures\\frame.rdc",
"event_id": 852
}{
"event_id": 852,
"output_dir": "D:\\_Proj\\QTAU6\\Assets\\EndField\\Elwin",
"prefix": "skin"
}输出目录大致如下：
skin_eid_852/
skin_vsin.json
skin_vsout.json
skin_manifest.json
skin_textures/
skin_pixel_t0_xxx.png
skin_rt_color0_eid852_xxx.png关闭当前 capture。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose what happens when closing the capture (e.g., discarding, saving, or side effects). With no annotations, this lack of behavioral context reduces transparency.
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 concise sentence. While efficient, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., stating the effect concisely).
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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior. It is too minimal to be fully informative.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond stating the action, which is baseline adequate.
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: close the current capture. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name aligns with sibling 'open_capture', providing implicit differentiation.
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?
No usage context or prerequisites are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'open_capture' or other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
打开 RenderDoc GUI 当前加载的 rdc。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must bear full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of opening a capture but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or whether this is a read-only operation. The connotation of 'connect' versus 'open' is unclear.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and directly states the action.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the implications of connecting, such as whether a capture must be pre-loaded, what happens on success/failure, or how it relates to other capture management tools.
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 has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it also omits context on what the connection entails beyond opening.
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 tool opens the currently loaded rdc in RenderDoc GUI, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like open_capture, which may serve a similar purpose. The verb 'open' is used, while the tool name uses 'connect', causing slight ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_capture or close_capture. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
导出 VSIn、VSOut、纹理和 manifest。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | No | skin | |
| event_id | Yes | ||
| output_dir | Yes | ||
| save_depth | No | ||
| mesh_format | No | json | |
| max_vertices | No | ||
| texture_stages | No | ||
| texture_file_type | No | png | |
| skip_small_textures | No | ||
| include_render_targets | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this tool likely creates files on disk or whether it is destructive. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, essential behavioral context is missing.
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, concise but overly terse. It front-loads the core export targets but omits necessary context. Every word earns its place, but not enough is said to be minimally viable.
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 the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or parameter behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.
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%, and the tool has 10 parameters. The description does not explain any parameters or their purposes, leaving the agent with no additional meaning beyond the bare schema names.
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 states it exports VSIn, VSOut, textures, and manifest, which clearly indicates the output components. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like export_event_textures (exports only textures) and export_mesh_stage_data (exports mesh stage data) by specifying the bundle includes additional data.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on typical scenarios. The description provides no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
导出一个 draw 绑定的纹理。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | No | skin | |
| stages | No | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| file_type | No | png | |
| output_dir | Yes | ||
| save_depth | No | ||
| skip_small | No | ||
| include_render_targets | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must explain behavior. It only says 'export', but no details on file creation, overwriting, permissions, or side effects. The behavior is opaque.
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 one sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to convey essential information.
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?
With 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the tool definition is grossly incomplete. The agent cannot effectively use this tool.
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% and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. Parameters like prefix, stages, file_type, etc. are left entirely undefined.
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 states it exports a texture, but 'draw' is ambiguous and does not differentiate from sibling tools like export_draw_bundle or export_mesh_stage_data. It lacks specificity about what 'draw' refers to.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The context signals mention sibling tools but the description does not provide any usage context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
导出一个 mesh stage。常用 stage 是 vsin 和 vsout。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | ||
| stage | No | vsout | |
| event_id | Yes | ||
| instance | No | ||
| first_index | No | ||
| mesh_format | No | json | |
| output_path | Yes | ||
| max_vertices | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects, error conditions). The action 'export' is stated but without context on what is affected.
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 very short (two sentences) but lacks necessary detail. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.
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?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not cover return values, parameter meanings, or usage context.
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%, and the description only hints at the 'stage' parameter (vsin/vsout) but explains no other parameters. All 8 parameters lack semantic guidance.
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 states 'Export a mesh stage' with a verb+object, and mentions common stages like vsin and vsout, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_draw_bundle or export_event_textures. However, it doesn't clarify what a mesh stage is or the export format.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
按路径打开 rdc。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filepath | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, error handling, permissions, or state changes. For a tool that likely mutates state (opens a file), this is insufficient.
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 short sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. There is no unnecessary information, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.
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 the tool has one required parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits what 'rdc' is, whether the operation is destructive, what happens if the path is invalid, and any prerequisites. It fails to fully equip an agent to use the tool 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?
The input schema provides no description for the 'filepath' parameter. The description adds minimal context by stating 'by path', implying the parameter is a file path to an rdc file. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only barely compensates.
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 tool opens an 'rdc' file by path. It uses a specific verb ('open') and resource ('rdc'), and the distinction from sibling tools like 'close_capture' is clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison to siblings like 'connect_to_gui_capture'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: closing, connecting to GUI, opening, and exporting different types of data. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as close_capture, open_capture, and export_event_textures.
With 6 tools, the surface is well-scoped for the domain of capture management and export, neither too few nor too many.
Covers core operations: opening, closing, connecting to GUI, and exporting various artifacts. Minor gaps like listing captures exist but do not severely hinder workflows.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
MCP server for progressive tool usage at any scale (see https://klavis.ai)
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
MCP server for Wan AI video generation
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kenzo1024/RenderdocMCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server