Lists all scene objects with their paths and handles. Filter by type—shape, joint, dummy, sensor, camera, light, or path—to quickly locate simulation elements.
Lista los objetos de la escena actual con su ruta y su handle.
tipo: 'todos', 'shape', 'joint', 'dummy', 'sensor', 'camara', 'luz', 'path'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | No | todos |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Lista' implicitly indicates a read-only operation, and the 'tipo' enumeration adds filtering behavior. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., an open scene) or possible error conditions, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second enumerates parameter options. Both are concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words.
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 listing tool with one optional filter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers purpose and parameter values. It could optionally mention that a scene must be loaded before use, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity and existing output schema.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing all allowed values for 'tipo' ('todos', 'shape', 'joint', 'dummy', 'sensor', 'camara', 'luz', 'path'), giving agents the necessary vocabulary. It does not explain each value's exact meaning, but the labels are mostly self-explanatory.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Lista los objetos de la escena actual con su ruta y su handle.' It uses a specific verb ('Lista'), a resource ('objetos de la escena actual'), and specifies the output details ('ruta y handle'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like eliminar_objeto or fijar_posicion.
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 implies the tool is used for listing objects and gives filtering context through the 'tipo' values ('todos', 'shape', 'joint', etc.). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but none of the sibling tools serve the same listing purpose, so the context is clear. No exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.