Lists creature skills defined in a save, including ID, name, creature, animation, and graph. Use this read-only tool to inspect skill data for scene or graph development.
List the creature skills (造物技能) defined in a save: id, name, the creature they belong to, their animation and graph. 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only.' largely repeats structured data rather than adding context. Beyond the field list, it discloses nothing about ordering, volume, or behavior when the save contains no creature skills; with annotations present the bar is lower, so a 3 fits.
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 verb and resource, then lists output fields; nothing is wasted. Slightly list-like punctuation, but efficient overall.
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 usefully enumerates returned fields, which is the right compensation. However, the sole input parameter remains unexplained and there is no note on empty results, making it only adequate for an agent to call correctly in all cases.
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% for the single parameter mapPath, and the description only vaguely gestures at it via 'defined in a save'. It never states that mapPath identifies the save/map, whether it's optional, or what happens if omitted, so the parameter is effectively undocumented.
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 names a specific verb and resource (list creature skills) and scopes it to 'a save', plus enumerates the returned fields (id, name, creature, animation, graph). It's clearly distinguishable from the write-side sibling scene_add_creature_skill, but it never explicitly names or contrasts that sibling.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'defined in a save' suggests inspection of existing skill definitions, and the read-only tag implies the counterpart to scene_add_creature_skill. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.