list_generationsRetrieve recent generation metadata owned by SpriteLoom MCP; only ownership-marked files are read, so arbitrary directories and files are ignored.
List recent MCP-owned generation metadata. Only metadata files with the SpriteLoom MCP ownership marker are read; arbitrary directories and files are ignored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| output_dir | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context that only ownership-marked metadata files are read and other files are ignored, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens with an empty result.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the filtering constraint second. Nothing redundant or padded.
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?
For a simple listing tool this is close, but with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should at least explain what output_dir changes and what the listing returns. The ownership-marker detail is helpful but leaves the listing's shape and the meaning of its only substantive parameter undocumented.
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% and the description never mentions either parameter. Neither 'limit' (default 20, max 100) nor 'output_dir' (null default, semantics entirely unexplained) is clarified, so the agent gets no help on what output_dir actually scopes.
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 recent MCP-owned generation metadata") with a clear scope qualifier. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like generate_sprite or spriteloom_status, but the read-only listing purpose is unambiguous.
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 statement of when to use this versus siblings (generate_sprite, edit_sprite, spriteloom_status) or when not to. The note about ignored arbitrary files is a scoping constraint on behavior, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.