reanim_list_movesetsList all parsed reanimation movesets from builtins and Lua modules, with an optional case-insensitive filter to find entries by name, InternalName, or file.
List all parsed movesets (builtin v_moveset1-3 + Modules/*.lua). Returns index, name, InternalName, file, description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional case-insensitive filter on name/InternalName/file |
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 adds real value beyond that by disclosing data provenance (builtin v_moveset1-3 plus Modules/*.lua) and the exact return fields, which matters because no output schema exists.
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?
One tightly packed sentence: scope first, provenance second, return shape last. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers source scope and returned fields, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It omits ordering, result-size, or pagination behavior, a minor gap for a likely small local dataset.
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% and the single 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema as a case-insensitive filter on name/InternalName/file. The description adds nothing about the filter, so baseline 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+resource ('List all parsed movesets') and narrows scope with provenance details (builtin v_moveset1-3 + Modules/*.lua), which helps distinguish it from reanim_list_dances and reanim_get_current_moveset. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of how it differs from reanim_check_movesets or reanim_get_current_moveset, and no note about when the optional filter should be applied. The purpose implies enumeration, but the agent must infer all routing decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.