Lists a save's respawn points—number, preset point, and place—plus how many players the level supports, so you can inspect spawn and group settings.
List the respawn points of a save (number, preset point, place) and how many players the level takes (the group of the level settings).
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds modest value by naming the returned fields (number, preset point, place) and player count, but does not clarify scoping, defaults, or why player count comes along with respawn points.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, which is good. But the two nested parentheticals make it dense and the combined return contents are hard to parse at a glance.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, which it partly shoulders by listing fields. It still omits what mapPath defaults to, whether it targets the open map, and how the player-count data relates to respawn points, leaving real gaps for a read 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 coverage is 0% and the single optional mapPath parameter is never mentioned in the description. Worse, 'of a save' actively conflicts with the mapPath-centric parameter, so the one parameter an agent must decide on is left unexplained.
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 (respawn points), and names the returned fields. However, it awkwardly bundles a second unrelated output (player count / level group) into the same tool, and 'of a save' is confusing next to the mapPath parameter, so the tool's true scope is muddled rather than crisp.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the obvious siblings scene_list_preset_points, scene_set_spawn, or scene_get_level_settings. The agent gets no conditions or alternatives to select from.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.