Lists every WGSL VFX shader node in the library with its hash, typed parameters, default values, and GPU compile status, flagging errors by line and column.
Every node in the VFX library ($VFX_LAB_LIBRARY, default ~/roblox-vfx-lab/shaders): its hash, state (clean, or problems at line:column) and parameters with type, range and default. Compiles each on the GPU.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, and it does surface meaningful traits: the library path resolution via $VFX_LAB_LIBRARY with a default, the problem-reporting format (line:column), and the side effect/cost that it compiles each shader on the GPU. It stops short of stating read-only safety explicitly or the latency/abort behavior when a compile fails.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the scope (whole library) is front-loaded before the detail about returned fields and the GPU compile note. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description must describe the return payload, and it does: hash, state (clean or line:column problems), and per-parameter type/range/default. For a zero-param listing tool that is nearly complete; only the GPU compile cost and failure behavior are left underspecified.
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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing parameter-level to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds the only relevant configurability context, the $VFX_LAB_LIBRARY environment variable.
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?
"Every node in the VFX library" is a specific scope plus a resource, and the sentence enumerates the returned fields (hash, state, parameters). It implicitly contrasts with single-shader tools like vfx_shader_read by saying "every node," but it never names a sibling or explicitly draws the boundary.
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?
Usage is only implied: it is obviously the tool to call when you want the whole library enumerated. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion such as "for one shader use vfx_shader_read," and no note on whether calling it repeatedly is costly because every shader is compiled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.