Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
API Monitor MCP

API Monitor MCP

by zxcvbbq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

capture_strings

Extract and search printable ANSI or UTF-16LE strings from APMX capture files to inspect APIs, find embedded text, and filter results by query or minimum length.

Instructions

Extract/search printable ANSI and UTF-16LE strings from an APMX capture.

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>"
    },
    "name": "capture_strings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNo
file_pathYes
minimum_lengthNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.26

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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no permissions, no rate limits, no note on how large captures or limits affect behavior. It only reveals the two encodings scanned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is tight, though borderline under-specified given the parameter coverage gap.

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 needn't be described, but for a four-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified to invoke confidently.

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% for four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'search' loosely implies the query param and 'printable' loosely implies minimum_length, but file_path and limit are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 specific verbs (Extract/search), the resource (printable strings), and the encoding targets (ANSI and UTF-16LE) from an APMX capture. This distinguishes it reasonably from capture_hex and capture_find_bytes, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 routing to alternatives such as capture_find_bytes for byte search or capture_hex for hex dumps. The 'extract/search' duality is hinted at but never explained (e.g., how 'query' toggles modes).

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