Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
API Monitor MCP

API Monitor MCP

by zxcvbbq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

capture_info

Inspect an APMX file header and list its ZIP container entries to verify capture integrity or explore contents without extraction.

Instructions

Inspect an APMX file header and list its ZIP container entries.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "capture_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.26

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Inspect" and "list" imply a read-only operation and the outputs (header and ZIP entries) are named, but there is no mention of error behavior, permissions, or what happens on an invalid file.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the action and both outputs are stated efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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 no explanation, and the one required parameter is simple. However, the description omits what an APMX file is and offers no usage context for a tool operating alongside many similar capture_* siblings.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single file_path parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description's reference to an "APMX file" gives indirect context that the path targets an APMX file, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the parameter name.

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?

The description states a specific verb ("Inspect") and resource ("APMX file header") and additionally names the ZIP container entries it lists. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby capture_list_entries sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many capture_* siblings. The agent must infer context purely from the sentence.

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