List all tokens on a scene with positions, HP, AC, conditions, and disposition. HP is read from the token (not the master Actor) — correct for unlinked tokens after damage. Omit sceneId to get tokens from the active scene. Returns token IDs needed for token-move, token-update, token-delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sceneId | No | Scene ID (omit for active scene) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable context by specifying that HP is read from the token (not the master Actor) and that it returns IDs for downstream operations, which are not captured in the schema or annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful nuance about HP source and a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean and efficient.
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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, how to target the active scene, and how the output is used. The HP nuance adds important context. Minor gaps like pagination or limits are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The only parameter, sceneId, has a schema description ('Scene ID (omit for active scene)') that fully covers its meaning. The tool description repeats this same guidance without adding new semantics, so it does not add value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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?
The description states a clear verb (List) and resource (tokens on a scene) with specific attributes (positions, HP, AC, conditions, disposition). It differentiates from sibling token tools like token-move, token-update, and token-delete by noting it returns the IDs needed for those operations, making its role unambiguous.
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?
It explains when to use the tool (to get tokens) and how to target the active scene by omitting sceneId, while also noting the returned IDs are prerequisites for other token operations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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.