Read a Metal .gputrace file without Xcode and summarize its command buffers, encoders, draw calls, debug groups, and call IDs.
Reads a Metal .gputrace capture without Xcode: command buffers, encoders, draws, debug groups, call ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capture | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and the description usefully adds that no Xcode is required and lists the decoded content. It says nothing about output shape, size, or whether a capture must already be loaded, which are the traits an agent would still want.
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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical-style content list is informative rather than padding.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned entities is a genuine plus, but the missing parameter format and the disambiguation from capture_records leave it only minimally 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?
The single parameter 'capture' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only hints via '.gputrace' that it is a file path. It never states whether the value is a path, a capture name, or an identifier, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (reads) and resource (Metal .gputrace capture) and enumerates the content returned: command buffers, encoders, draws, debug groups, call ids. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling capture_records, leaving the summary/records split to inference.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. Nothing tells the agent whether to reach for this over capture_records, trace_query, or trace_tables when inspecting a capture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.