list-combatsList all combat encounters in the world, showing scene, active status, round, turn, combatant count, and current actor.
List every combat encounter of the world with its scene, whether it is active and started, round, turn, number of combatants and who acts now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v14.2609.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a list of all combats with specific fields, but doesn't mention any ordering, pagination, or performance implications. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loads the purpose. It lists the fields without extra fluff, so it's efficient and to the point.
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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. However, it could mention whether it returns all combats regardless of scene or active status, and any ordering (e.g., by round or turn). Given the tool's simplicity, it's sufficient but has minor gaps.
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, and schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description effectively communicates that there's nothing to configure, and it states the output fields.
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 it lists combat encounters and enumerates the fields shown (scene, active, started, round, turn, combatants, who acts now). It is specific and informative, but there are sibling tools like get-combat that focus on a single combat, so it could explicitly distinguish itself, but it's clear enough.
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 it's for getting an overview of all combat encounters, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus get-combat or other combat tools. Given the name and description, an agent can infer it's for listing, but no explicit guidance on alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.