List Rohitab APMX capture files in a directory, with optional recursive scanning and result limits, to locate saved API Monitor captures for inspection or export.
List Rohitab APMX captures in a directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| directory | Yes | ||
| recursive | 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, yet it only implies a read operation via 'List'. It says nothing about recursion behavior (defaults to true), result caps, or whether listing requires the directory to exist. Minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded, which is efficient. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 no annotations and no parameter documentation, the agent lacks enough context to call this correctly against its many siblings.
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 three parameters. The description only obliquely reflects the required 'directory' parameter; 'recursive' (default true) and 'limit' (default 500) are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 description states a specific verb (List) and resource (Rohitab APMX captures) with a clear scope constraint (in a directory). It is understandable on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling capture_search_directory, which an agent must choose between.
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 versus capture_search_directory or the other capture_list_* siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.