Lists client Lua scripts in a save—names, files, line counts, variables, controls, and optional source—so you can inspect script structure; read-only.
List the client scripts (Lua) of a save: name, file, number of lines, its variables (name, type, whether public), the controls each is on, and with includeSource the Lua itself. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mapPath | No | ||
| includeSource | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful detail that the payload can be large when includeSource is set and that it enumerates structure down to variable publicity and controls, but does not mention size limits, permissions, or performance implications of pulling full Lua source.
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 front-loaded sentence that packs the resource, the returned fields, and the key flag with zero filler. The dense enumeration is slightly hard to scan but every clause carries information.
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?
With no output schema, the description does well to sketch the return shape, but it leaves gaps an agent needs: what mapPath means, what happens if it is omitted (0 required params), and whether the source payload is bounded. Adequate but incomplete for a two-parameter discovery tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains includeSource clearly ('with includeSource the Lua itself', defaulting to false per schema), but mapPath is only implied by 'of a save' and never named or described, leaving one of two parameters uninterpretable from text.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('List the client scripts (Lua) of a save') with an enumeration of the returned fields (name, file, line count, variables, controls, source). It implicitly separates itself from the write sibling scene_set_client_script by being a 'list' operation, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as scene_check_client or scene_set_client_script, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a map must be open). 'Read-only' is a restatement of annotation flags rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.