API Monitor MCP

by zxcvbbq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

capture_search_directory

Search printable strings across all APMX captures in a directory to find matching data in saved API monitoring files.

Instructions

Search printable strings across all APMX captures in a directory.

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": {
      "directory": "<directory>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "capture_search_directory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`directory`	Yes
`recursive`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.26Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search, but says nothing about cost, result size, how 'recursive' traversal behaves, or what happens with large captures, leaving significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded; no wasted words. It is concise almost to a fault, but structurally clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 4-parameter search tool with no annotations the description omits recursive/limit semantics and alternative routing, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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 four parameters, yet it only hints at 'directory' and the query concept via 'strings'. It says nothing about 'limit', 'recursive', or query syntax, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Search'), resource ('printable strings'), and scope ('across all APMX captures in a directory'), which implicitly separates it from the single-capture capture_strings sibling. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against the very similar capture_search_entries or capture_find_bytes, so it stops 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 tool versus the many search/strings siblings (capture_strings, capture_search_entries, capture_find_bytes, capture_list_directory). No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are given; usage must be inferred from the one-line purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server