List all classes, interfaces, and enums in a Dalamud namespace to explore available types for FFXIV plugin development.
List all types (classes, interfaces, enums, etc.) in a specific Dalamud namespace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | Yes | Namespace name, e.g. "Dalamud.Plugin.Services" or "Dalamud.Game.ClientState" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely does not meet it. It never states whether this is a safe read (implied), whether results are capped or paginated, whether nested/transitive namespaces are included, or what a returned entry looks like. Only the enumeration of included type kinds is genuinely informative.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the scope constraint, with zero padding. Nothing to trim.
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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description minimally suffices and even clarifies the kinds of members returned. However, with no annotations and no return-value contract, absence of any statement about output shape, ordering, or result limits leaves an agent guessing when interpreting the response.
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 parameter already documents itself with two concrete examples. The description implies namespace scoping but adds no format, casing, or nesting semantics beyond the schema. 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 ('List') plus resource ('all types (classes, interfaces, enums)') scoped to a specific Dalamud namespace. That is clear and distinguishable from get_type (single type) and list_namespaces (namespaces themselves). It stops short of naming a sibling for comparison, so it is a solid 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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The only usage hint is implicit in the name and the 'in a specific namespace' phrasing. An agent must infer that this is the browse-a-namespace tool and not a substitute for search_members or get_type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.