Attach to a running process to capture GPU and timing data. Record frames and generate a PIX capture for in-depth performance analysis.
Attach to a running process and capture it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| winml | No | ||
| frames | No | ||
| remote | No | ||
| process_id | Yes | ||
| output_file | No | ||
| capture_count | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No | ||
| output_directory | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a minimal behavioral detail—that the tool attaches to an existing process—beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, whether the process is paused, output behavior, or failure modes. With non-read-only and non-idempotent annotations, more behavioral context would be expected.
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 with no filler, which satisfies conciseness. However, it lacks structure or any breakdown of steps/inputs, making it under-specified for a tool with eight parameters.
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 an 8-parameter tool with no parameter documentation, no usage guidance, and capture-related side effects, a one-line description is far from complete. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter semantics and behavioral expectations.
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 names none of the eight parameters (process_id, frames, remote, output_file, capture_count, timeout_seconds, output_directory, winml). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of semantic explanations, leaving the agent unable to infer how to configure a capture.
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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') and a clear resource ('a running process'), which distinguishes it from sibling launch-and-capture tools like pix_capture_app or pix_capture_uwp_app. 'Capture it' is somewhat vague about what is captured, but in context it adequately identifies the operation.
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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as pix_capture_app, pix_capture_uwp_app, or pix_capture_timing. The only implied usage is that the target process must already be running; no exclusions or decision rules are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.