Lists files stored inside an APMX capture container from a specified path, with an optional limit, so you can inspect saved capture contents.
List files stored inside an APMX capture container.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| file_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of pagination behavior (limit defaults to 200), permissions required, recursion depth, or any other behavioral trait. Significant gaps for a container-listing tool.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and many siblings, making it too sparse to be considered appropriately sized for the task.
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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete for a required-file_path listing tool. It omits essential context for correct invocation.
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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. It does not explain what file_path refers to (e.g., path to the capture container) or what limit controls. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names.
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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('files stored inside an APMX capture container'). However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like capture_list_directory, capture_search_entries, or capture_list_processes, which also list entries. A 4 is appropriate because the purpose is clear but sibling distinction is absent.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.