reanim_list_root_pluginsList built-in RootPart modes 0-6, active and disabled Plugins files with parsed names, and the currently selected mode for quick inspection.
List builtin RootPart modes (0-6), active/disabled Plugins/ files with parsed names, and the currently selected mode.
| 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 cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful content scope by naming RootPart modes, plugin files, and selected mode, but discloses no operational details such as where files are read from or output ordering.
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 that enumerates the three output categories without filler. Every clause 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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return content and does so by naming modes, plugin file states, parsed names, and selected mode. It lacks only minor formatting/ordering detail, which is not critical for a zero-parameter read-only list.
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 parameter semantics baseline is 4. There is no parameter documentation needed or provided.
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 concrete resources (builtin RootPart modes 0-6, active/disabled Plugins/ files, selected mode). The resource scope distinguishes it from generic list tools like reanim_list_modules, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
Gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It only describes returned content, leaving the agent to infer that this is a read-only inspection tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.