Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pix-mcp

pix-mcp

by scarletfantasy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

pix_get_event_tree

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a bounded tree of marker events from a GPU capture to inspect the event hierarchy.

Instructions

Return the marker hierarchy as a bounded tree.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "capture_id": "<capture_id>"
    },
    "name": "pix_get_event_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_depthNo
max_nodesNo
capture_idYes
queue_nameNo
root_queue_idNo
timeout_secondsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The word 'bounded' adds some behavioral context about tree limits, but the description does not explain pruning, missing nodes, timeout effects, or how queue/root parameters influence the returned tree.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification for a tool with six parameters and no schema-level descriptions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description does not explain what a marker hierarchy contains, how bounds are applied, how queue/capture context matters, or how this differs from similar event tools. The output schema helps, but an agent still lacks enough context to confidently choose and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the description should compensate for the six parameters. 'Bounded tree' only weakly hints at max_depth and max_nodes; capture_id, queue_name, root_queue_id, and timeout_seconds remain semantically unexplained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('marker hierarchy'), and a distinguishing result shape ('bounded tree'). This separates it from flat event-list tools like pix_list_events, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no direct guidance about when to use this tool instead of pix_get_event, pix_list_events, or other event-related siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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