Inspect raw recording moments at specified source times before deciding what to keep or where to zoom; shows up to 8 frames and marks clicks within 400ms with a red box.
See raw recording moments (source ms) before deciding what to keep or where to zoom. Up to 8 frames; clicks within 400ms are marked with a red box.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | ||
| sourceMs | Yes | ||
| projectPath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds value by disclosing output characteristics instead: a hard cap of 8 frames and the fact that clicks within 400ms are annotated with a red box. It stops short of describing error behavior for out-of-range source timestamps, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Two compact sentences with no waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the operational details (frame cap, click marking) follow in order of importance.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns; it hints at visual output via the red-box annotation but never says what is actually returned (image data vs. paths) or the return shape. Combined with undocumented parameters, the definition is workable but incomplete.
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% for three parameters. The description partially compensates by implying the meaning of sourceMs ('source ms', 'up to 8 frames' matching maxItems=8), but projectPath and width are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving the agent guessing at what width controls.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('See raw recording moments (source ms)') and clarifies the scope is raw source material rather than edited output. It does not distinguish itself from sibling frame-producing tools such as screenstudio_editor_frame or screenstudio_export_frame, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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 phrase 'before deciding what to keep or where to zoom' implies a pre-edit review workflow, which is genuine usage context. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer when this beats the other frame-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.