Lists the classes in a save, showing each class's camera template, screen layout, and whether characters can jump, sprint, climb, and glide. Read-only.
List the classes (职业) of a save: for each, the camera template and screen layout it uses and whether its character may jump, sprint, climb and glide. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mapPath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the closing 'Read-only.' is partly redundant, but the description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the result: one entry per class with camera template, layout, and four capability booleans. That compensates for the absent output schema.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then the per-item fields. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.
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?
Good coverage of return contents, which matters since there is no output schema, but it omits the only input parameter's meaning and gives no hint about how to obtain a valid mapPath. Adequate for the read path, incomplete on the input side.
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 single parameter mapPath has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a path on disk, an identifier from list_maps/inspect_map, or optional. With 1 undocumented param, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (classes of a save), and enumerates the per-class fields returned (camera template, screen layout, jump/sprint/climb/glide flags). This lets an agent distinguish it from the mutating sibling scene_set_class without opening either schema.
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 read-only framing and the 'of a save' phrasing imply it's the inspection counterpart to scene_set_class, but no sentence explicitly says when to use this versus that sibling or what prerequisite context (a loaded/inspected map) is needed. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.