List and search GPU counters available in a PIX capture, optionally grouped, with pagination to browse results.
List GPU counters available for this capture, grouped and searchable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| pattern | No | ||
| refresh | No | ||
| capture_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only minimal context about grouping and searchability, and does not disclose behavior around pagination (limit/cursor), refresh, or timeout. With annotations present, this meets but does not exceed the baseline.
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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the key differentiating features. Every word earns its place.
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, the tool has 7 parameters, several of which are non-obvious (cursor, limit, refresh, timeout_seconds), and the description provides no usage guidance or parameter details. For a tool with this parameter count and zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation.
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 must compensate for explaining the 7 parameters. It only hints at 'grouped' (group) and 'searchable' (pattern), leaving limit, cursor, refresh, timeout_seconds, and capture_id semantics largely unexplained. This is inadequate for the number of parameters.
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 ('List'), a clear resource ('GPU counters'), and the scope ('available for this capture'). It also conveys the tool's functionality ('grouped and searchable'), which distinguishes it from counter-collection tools like pix_collect_counters, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 usage for browsing or searching counters within a capture, but gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as pix_list_timing_counters, pix_suggest_counter_pattern, or pix_get_counter_hotspots. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.