Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
API Monitor MCP

API Monitor MCP

by zxcvbbq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

capture_read_entry

Read one APMX ZIP entry by file path and entry name, returning text when printable or base64 otherwise for inspecting saved API Monitor capture data.

Instructions

Read one APMX ZIP entry, returning text when printable or base64 otherwise.

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>",
      "entry_name": "<entry_name>"
    },
    "name": "capture_read_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
max_bytesNo
entry_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.26

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It does state the conditional return representation (text vs base64), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior if entry is missing, or truncation via max_bytes. Partial behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then return behavior. No filler.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but for a 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and zero parameter descriptions, the description should cover parameter semantics (especially max_bytes truncation) and when to choose this over capture_list_entries/capture_search_entries/capture_extract_entry. Those gaps make it incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It does not mention file_path, entry_name, or max_bytes—including what max_bytes does or that it defaults to 1MB. It adds no parameter meaning beyond names in schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one APMX ZIP entry) and even the return encoding rule (text when printable, base64 otherwise). It distinguishes itself from list/search siblings by 'one', but does not name alternatives explicitly. Clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as capture_list_entries or capture_search_entries. The agent can infer reading a single entry from the name, but the description provides no routing context.

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