Retrieve a saved API call by file, process, and record index to inspect exact encoded arguments and bounded decode candidates.
Return one saved call with exact encoded args plus bounded candidates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| record_index | Yes | ||
| process_index | Yes | ||
| max_data_bytes | No | ||
| resolve_definitions | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.26Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it largely does not: 'Return' implies a read but read-only safety is not stated, and there is no mention of error behavior, what 'bounded candidates' actually limits, or how the bounded caps apply. It adds only a thin hint of behavior.
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?
A single tight sentence with no waste and the core action front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than crispness.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage context, the description is too thin for a tool of this complexity. An agent lacks the detail needed to invoke it confidently.
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% across six parameters, so the schema explains nothing and the description must compensate. It only loosely gestures at 'exact encoded args' and 'bounded candidates' (which vaguely relate to max_items/max_data_bytes) while leaving file_path, process_index, record_index, and resolve_definitions entirely unexplained.
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 verb 'Return' and resource 'one saved call' give a recognizable purpose, and 'one' hints it is a single-record fetch rather than a list. However, terms like 'exact encoded args' and 'bounded candidates' are cryptic and it offers no differentiation from siblings such as capture_call_records or capture_read_entry.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many capture_* siblings that also return call data. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no named alternative are provided; usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.