Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
witness

witness

by wookat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_segments

Lists speech-anchored segments with linked suspects, dead clicks, and DOM/shot references so you can map utterances to UI evidence; treat cuts as mechanical and merge or split them by meaning.

Instructions

Speech anchor index — every spoken segment with suspects, dead clicks and shot/dom refs. Segments are mechanically cut, NOT confirmed issues: merge adjacent ones or split as the semantics require. READ THIS FIRST.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_segments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does valuable work by disclosing that 'Segments are mechanically cut, NOT confirmed issues' — a critical interpretation constraint — and lists the payload fields, but never states it is read-only, whether results are paginated or bounded, or what the overall response shape is.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tightly packed fragments, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the caveat and the calling directive. Only 'READ THIS FIRST' is slightly cryptic about what it should be read before, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema index tool, the description covers content, the mechanical-cut caveat, and entry-point priority. Undefined terms like 'suspects' and 'dead clicks' and the absence of any next-step routing leave a modest gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to add; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately spends its words on output meaning and interpretation rather than inventing input detail.

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?

Names the specific resource and its contents: 'Speech anchor index — every spoken segment with suspects, dead clicks and shot/dom refs.' An agent can distinguish this from segment_detail (per-segment depth) by the 'index/every segment' framing, though the jargon 'speech anchor' is unexplained.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'READ THIS FIRST' gives a clear entry-point ordering cue, and 'merge adjacent ones or split as the semantics require' implies follow-up work. It stops short of naming which sibling to call next (segment_detail, get_shot) or stating when not to use it.

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