Lists read-only environment configurations (skies) for a save, including ID, name, fixed hour, level-clock behavior, stars, milky way, and clouds.
List the environment configurations (环境配置, the skies) of a save: id, name, fixed hour, whether it follows the level clock, stars, milky way, clouds. 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=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only.' adds no new information. The only added behavioral context is the phrase 'of a save', hinting at a loaded-save dependency, with no mention of ordering, empty results, or pagination.
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 leaves no filler; the only waste is the trailing 'Read-only.' which duplicates the annotations. The parenthetical gloss adds minor noise but aids disambiguation.
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?
The field enumeration usefully substitutes for the missing output schema, so an agent knows what comes back. However, the undocumented mapPath parameter and the unexplained save/map prerequisite leave the call contract incomplete for a tool invoked from a scene-editing workflow.
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 is not mentioned anywhere in the description, so an agent cannot tell whether it is optional, what form a path takes, or which map/save it selects. With low coverage the description should compensate and does not.
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 and resource (list environment configurations) plus the scope ('of a save') and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly a read of environments versus the mutating sibling scene_add_environment, though it doesn't name that sibling 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?
The read-only listing intent and the implied pairing with scene_add_environment are inferable from the name and field list, but the description never says when to call this vs. get_level_settings or scene_list_preset_points, nor what prerequisites (a loaded save/map) are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.