reanim_list_dancesLists all parsed dances from builtin and Module Lua files, with query and limit options. Returns index, name, file, and description for browsing dance modules.
List all parsed dances (builtin v_dance1-2 + Modules/*.lua incl. packed MARKET files). Returns index, name, file, description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries | |
| query | No | Optional filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read. The description adds value by naming the fields it returns (index, name, file, description) and by disclosing the parsed source set including packed MARKET files, but says nothing about ordering, pagination interaction with limit, or how query matching works.
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, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the return fields trailing. No filler, though the parenthetical scope detail is dense.
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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it covers scope and return fields, which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of explaining ordering or how query filters match, but nothing critical is missing.
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 100%, so both limit and query are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (dances), and clarifies the scope of what is parsed: builtin v_dance1-2 plus Modules/*.lua including packed MARKET files. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many sibling list/check tools, but the scope detail makes the target set 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?
The description never says when to reach for this tool versus reanim_check_dances, reanim_get_current_dance, or the other listing tools. The listing intent is implied by the verb 'List', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.