Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PoC Recorder MCP Server

PoC Recorder MCP Server

by kta41
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Recorded Videos & GIFs

list-recordings

Find generated MP4, GIF, and WebM walkthrough recordings in an output directory, including file sizes, so you can review or reuse captured scenarios.

Instructions

List generated .mp4, .gif, and .webm files in the output directory with file sizes.

Tool call template

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-recordings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of recording entries to return.
directoryNoOptional directory to scan for recorded `.mp4`, `.gif`, and `.webm` files.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scanned directory, the file formats, and that file sizes are returned, but says nothing about ordering, whether results are paginated, or what happens for an empty/nonexistent directory. Adequate but with gaps for a read-only listing tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The resource and scope are stated immediately and nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and hints at the return payload ('file sizes'). The omission of ordering/empty-result behavior is minor given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'limit' and 'directory' are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (generated .mp4/.gif/.webm files in the output directory), plus the returned attribute (file sizes). This is clear and concrete, though it never names or contrasts with the sibling list-scenarios, so the agent must infer the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The only signal is the implicit 'list what was recorded' framing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools