list_mapsLevel-editor maps with updatedAt and hasMapData. hasMapData:false means the map was never saved and cannot be exported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return (default 100, max 500). | |
| projectId | No | Restrict to one project. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the meaning of hasMapData:false (never saved, cannot be exported) and that maps include updatedAt, which helps an agent interpret the returned data. 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?
The description is very short: two sentences with no unnecessary words. However, it starts awkwardly as a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, which slightly reduces clarity. Still, it avoids fluff and front-loads the key fact that this is about maps.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete but lacks an explicit statement that this tool returns a list/collection of maps. It does mention relevant response fields (updatedAt, hasMapData), but doesn't describe pagination or default behavior beyond what the parameter schema covers. The warning about hasMapData:false adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the missing 'list' framing.
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 both parameters (limit, projectId) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it doesn't improve on the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 is a noun phrase describing map properties ('Level-editor maps with updatedAt and hasMapData') rather than stating the action of listing maps. It doesn't use a verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', and while the title provides that, the description itself is vague about purpose. It also doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_map or export_map.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There's no mention of scrolling through maps, filtering, or that get_map might be more appropriate for a single map. The hasMapData note is about data semantics, not tool usage.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and the descriptions are extremely detailed with cross-references (e.g., animate_asset vs frame_animation vs generate_character_animation). A few pairs like reprocess_asset vs revise_asset could be confused initially, but their descriptions and use cases are explicit enough to prevent misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_project, get_asset, cancel_job). Verbs are imperative and nouns are appropriately singular/plural, making the API predictable and readable.
At 41 tools, the server is far beyond the 15-25 range considered reasonable for most APIs. While the domain is broad (project, assets, characters, animations, jobs, exports, credits), the sheer number creates a heavy surface that may overwhelm agents and suggests the API could be consolidated into higher-level operations.
The tool set covers the full creative pipeline: project creation, asset/character generation, animation (both AI and frame-based), revisions, exports, and job management. Minor gaps include lack of delete operations for assets/characters/projects and no listing of all jobs, but these are not critical for the core workflow and are likely intentional for a generative art platform.