List the active effects on an actor, or on ONE token via tokenId (conditions, buffs, debuffs, custom effects).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actorId | No | Actor ID (from actor-list/actor-filter) | |
| sceneId | No | Scene of tokenId (default: active) | |
| tokenId | No | Token ID (from token-list) instead of actorId: that token's own actor (module 8.14+) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / actorId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The actor ID to get effects from"New value: +"Actor ID (from actor-list/actor-filter)"Input schema / properties / sceneIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Scene of tokenId (default: active)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / tokenIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Token ID (from token-list) instead of actorId: that token's own actor (module 8.14+)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "actorId"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the scoping fact that tokenId targets a single token's own actor, without noting return format, ordering, or whether a missing token yields an error.
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 the actor/token scope first and the effect kinds in parentheses; there is no filler.
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?
For a three-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the essentials are present, but the description omits what a caller gets back (no output schema) and whether no-actor means default/all, leaving some inference to the agent.
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 coverage is 100% and each parameter (actorId, sceneId, tokenId) is documented in the schema with defaults and sources. The description reinforces the actorId-vs-tokenId mutual exclusion, which is marginal added value over an already complete schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (active effects on an actor or one token), and enumerates what counts as an effect (conditions, buffs, debuffs, custom). Clearly distinguished from the mutating siblings effect-create/effect-update/effect-delete/effect-toggle-status, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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?
The description implies when to use it (to read effects) and clarifies that tokenId selects one token's effects 'instead of' actorId, but offers no explicit when-not guidance, no exclusion against siblings, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.