Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
API Monitor MCP

API Monitor MCP

by zxcvbbq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

capture_validate

Validate saved API capture files by checking APMX prefix, ZIP entries, process metadata, and call streams to detect corruption before inspection or export.

Instructions

Validate an APMX prefix, ZIP entries, process metadata, and call streams.

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_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deepNo
file_pathYes
max_recordsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.26

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only validation but never states that explicitly, nor does it describe side effects, failure behavior, or what 'validate' actually checks. Only a minimal behavioral hint is present.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity and lacks any front-loaded usage or scope framing.

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 with no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no usage context, the description leaves critical gaps for a three-parameter validation tool.

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 mentions none of them: file_path, deep, and max_records are left 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?

The description uses a specific verb (Validate) and enumerates the resource components (APMX prefix, ZIP entries, process metadata, call streams). It is clear what the tool does but does not differentiate it from any of the many sibling capture_* inspection tools.

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, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent gets no signal about when validation should be run versus other capture operations like capture_info or capture_compare.

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