Lists your active Civilization VI units with position, type, movement, health, and action IDs; excludes consumed units so you can choose valid commands.
List all your units with position, type, movement, and health.
Each unit shows its id and idx (needed for action commands). Consumed units (e.g. settlers that founded cities) are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that consumed units are excluded from the list. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful detail about the output scope.
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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and included fields, and the second adds critical detail about excluded units and the importance of id/idx. No unnecessary words.
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 (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what fields are shown and what is excluded, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's return value.
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?
With zero parameters and schema coverage 100%, the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but it provides context about the output.
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 clearly states the verb 'list all your units' and specifies the resource (units) along with what information is included (position, type, movement, health) and excluded (consumed units). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on general unit listing.
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 usage for listing units but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_builder_tasks or unit_action. No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.