Get the list of bounded selected nodes owned by the current edited scene, enabling scene-safe node selection.
List bounded selected nodes owned by the current edited scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful scoping information ('bounded' nodes, 'current edited scene'), enriching the agent's understanding of what is included in the result. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra context beyond the safety hints.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and scope, making it quick to parse and easy to remember.
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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema (which covers return format), the description provides enough information: what is listed and from where. Minor ambiguity around the term 'bounded' is a small gap, but given the output schema and annotations, the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that by being clear about what is being listed.
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 states a specific verb ('List') with a precise resource ('bounded selected nodes') and context ('owned by the current edited scene'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like worldkit_select_node (which modifies selection) and worldkit_scene_summary (which provides a broader scene overview), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.
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?
It provides clear context by specifying that it lists selected nodes limited to the current edited scene, which implies read-only inspection. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives such as worldkit_scene_summary or when not to use it. Lacks explicit exclusions or routing guidance, so a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.