Lists saved GPU trace recordings newest first, with frames, FPS, GPU ms per frame, and memory peaks so you can paginate and compare performance runs.
Lists the saved recordings, newest first, with frames, FPS, GPU ms per frame and memory peaks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | rows per page, default 50, at most 500 | |
| offset | No | first row, default 0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine behavioral context in the form of sort order ('newest first') and the metric set returned per recording, but says nothing about pagination behavior or how many recordings typically exist, so the addition is real but modest.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource and ordering before the returned fields. No filler, nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.
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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (frames, FPS, GPU ms per frame, memory peaks), which is exactly the gap it needs to fill. Paging is handled by the schema; only the absence of guidance on identifying/filtering recordings keeps this from a 5.
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% - both limit (default 50, max 500) and offset are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about paging semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('Lists') plus a clearly identified resource ('saved recordings') and ordering ('newest first'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like perf_record (which records) and perf_compare (which compares), though the description never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus perf_record, perf_compare, or capture_summary. Usage is only inferable from the name and the listing verb; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.