Read and search the monitoring log stored in an APMX capture file. Use it to inspect captured API activity by file path, with optional query and result limit.
Read and search the monitoring log stored in an APMX capture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination/limit behavior, whether the search is substring or pattern based, error behavior on a missing capture, or the log's format. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'Read' is conveyed.
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 zero filler — good structure. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but it wastes no words.
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?
Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the definition omits everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: parameter meaning, log location semantics, and any routing against the dense set of capture_* siblings. Inadequate for a three-parameter tool with no annotations.
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, and the description explains none of them: 'query' syntax/default and 'limit' semantics (default 1000, max?) are left entirely to a bare title and type. file_path's relationship to an APMX capture is also unexplained.
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 pair ('Read and search') and a specific resource ('the monitoring log stored in an APMX capture'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as capture_search_entries or capture_list_entries, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. An agent wanting log data versus entry data versus call data gets nothing to steer it. Only the weakest implied usage is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.