Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pix-mcp

pix-mcp

by scarletfantasy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

pix_build_bridge

Idempotent

Build the PIX bridge sidecar to enable GPU capture analysis; requires .NET SDK and a local PIX installation.

Instructions

Compile the pixbridge sidecar. Needs the .NET SDK and a local PIX install.

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": "pix_build_bridge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
platformNowindows
timeout_secondsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover idempotence and non-destructive safety. The description adds prerequisite dependencies, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention build side effects, output artifacts, or what happens on failure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every word contributes either to the core purpose or to essential prerequisites.

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

Completeness3/5

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

It covers the core action and prerequisites, and an output schema exists to describe results. However, missing parameter semantics and lack of detail about build outputs or failure conditions leave some gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description says nothing about 'platform' or 'timeout_seconds'. The parameter names and defaults provide minimal clues, but valid platform values and timeout behavior are left undocumented.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Compile the pixbridge sidecar.' This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, which are all capture/analysis operations, and there is no other build tool among them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives important prerequisites ('.NET SDK' and 'a local PIX install') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to avoid it. Usage is implied by the unique compile action rather than clearly contrasted with alternatives.

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