Retrieve a specific event by queue_id or global_id, including its parent chain, to inspect GPU capture and timing details.
Return one event by queue_id or global_id, with its parent chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queue_id | No | ||
| global_id | No | ||
| capture_id | Yes | ||
| queue_name | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No | ||
| include_children | 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?
Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to cover those traits. It adds that the result includes the parent chain, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain precedence rules for queue_id vs global_id, the role of capture_id, or how include_children affects the result.
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 that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
Despite having an output schema and safety annotations, the tool has six parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description does not adequately clarify the required capture_id or the interaction between identifiers. An agent would likely need additional external knowledge to call this tool correctly.
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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only mentions queue_id and global_id as lookup keys. It does not explain the required capture_id, queue_name, timeout_seconds, or include_children, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.
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 states a specific verb and resource: return one event by queue_id or global_id, and mentions the parent chain, which helps distinguish it from listing or searching tools. It does not explicitly mention the required capture_id or differentiate itself from pix_get_event_tree, so it is not fully distinguishing.
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?
The description implies that this is a lookup tool for a single event, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like pix_list_events, pix_search_events, or pix_get_event_tree. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.