reanim_list_dance_keybindsShow the 15 dance keybind slots, active page, and MCP-assigned dances to check which keys map to which dances before rebinding.
Show the 15 dance keybind slots (Z X C V B N G H J K L R T U P), current page, and MCP-assigned dances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing concrete return content: the 15 slot/letter mapping and the notion of a 'current page', which reveals pagination behavior an agent would otherwise not know.
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 covering scope and return content with no filler. The parenthetical letter list is verbose but arguably informative for slot layout, so it mostly earns its place.
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 zero-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the return contains and even hints at pagination. Complete enough to call correctly, though it doesn't explain how to change pages.
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 takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to carry, and schema description coverage is 100%.
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 ('Show') and resource ('dance keybind slots'), and enumerates the return content (slots, current page, MCP-assigned dances), which distinguishes it from the write sibling reanim_set_dance_keybind. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the read verb and scope make the intent 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?
Usage is only implied – an agent can infer this is the read/view operation for inspecting keybinds, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of the related set_dance_keybind mutation, and no conditions that select this tool over alternatives such as reanim_get_current_dance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.