Extract a single bounded APMX ZIP entry to a chosen output file, with optional size limit and overwrite control, for inspecting saved capture contents.
Extract one bounded APMX ZIP entry to a caller-selected file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| entry_name | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it leaves most of it unaddressed. It hints that extraction is 'bounded' (implying a size cap) and writes to disk, but says nothing about overwrite semantics, what happens when the bound is exceeded, permission/auth requirements, or that existing files at output_path are preserved by default. For a write-to-disk tool this is a substantial gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and destination appear in order of importance and nothing is redundant.
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?
The output schema covers return values, so that need not be explained. However, with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and a filesystem-mutating operation, the definition omits the safety and parameter context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Entry' and 'caller-selected file' faintly map to entry_name/file_path/output_path and 'bounded' hints at max_bytes, but nothing explains required-vs-optional status, max_bytes units, or the meaning of the overwrite flag.
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 ('extract') and resource ('one bounded APMX ZIP entry') plus the destination ('caller-selected file'), which is more precise than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like capture_read_entry or capture_extract_call_payload, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'to a caller-selected file' weakly implies the file-writing use case versus read_entry, but the description never states when this tool should be chosen over capture_read_entry or capture_extract_call_payload.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.