List process records and executable paths recoverable from an APMX capture, helping identify which processes are present in saved API monitoring data.
List process records and executable paths recoverable from an APMX capture.
| 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 behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing of recoverable data but says nothing about pagination behavior, whether large captures are truncated, or the format of the returned records, which for a no-annotation tool is a notable 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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it ends at the minimum useful level of detail.
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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and no prose on the required file_path or the limit parameter, the definition is only minimally complete 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 compensate. It does not identify file_path as the required capture file nor explain the limit parameter's role, leaving both parameters undocumented in prose.
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 (List) and resource (process records and executable paths) and scopes it to an APMX capture, so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent capture_read_process_data or capture_list_entries siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this versus capture_read_process_data or the other list_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'recoverable'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.