Lists the signals defined in a save and shows each signal's parameter names and types in order, so you can inspect available signal data without modifying the save.
List the names of the signals (信号) defined in a save, and what each carries (parameters: name and type, in order). 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 the description restates 'Read-only', which adds little. It does add useful output context (each signal's parameters with name and type, in order), but says nothing about behavior when no signals exist or about scope beyond 'a save'.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the parenthetical clarifying return shape is efficiently integrated. Slightly compressed to the point that the mapPath semantics get lost.
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 sketches the return value (names plus parameter name/type in order), which is the main thing an agent needs. It is incomplete on the input side, leaving the only parameter and its optionality unexplained.
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?
There is one parameter, mapPath, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — 'defined in a save' is the only oblique hint. With a real undocumented parameter, the description needed to explain whether the path is optional or what defaults to the active map.
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 the names of the signals defined in a save, and what each carries') and implies the returned shape. It is distinguishable from the sibling scene_add_signal, though it never names a sibling or the read-only counterpart 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 framing implies this is the inspection tool for signals, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus scene_add_signal or other scene_list_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.