get-available-conditionsList available conditions in a Foundry world, including ID, name, icon, and description, to identify the ID needed for toggle-token-condition.
List the conditions the game system of the world offers in Foundry, with id, name, icon and description. Use it to find the id for toggle-token-condition.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the output includes id, name, icon, and description, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the list is complete, sorted, or filtered by game system, though the mention of 'game system of the world' hints at system-specificity. No contradiction with annotations.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('List the conditions') and includes the output fields and a usage pointer. No fluff, every word contributes. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only list tool.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description is complete enough to know what it does and when to use it. It could potentially mention that the output is only for the current world's game system, but the mention of 'game system of the world' covers that. Given the simplicity, nothing critical is missing.
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 0 parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns (id, name, icon, description) and its purpose (to get id for toggle-token-condition). This compensates for the lack of parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'available conditions', specifying the output fields (id, name, icon, description). It also distinguishes its purpose from the sibling 'toggle-token-condition' by indicating it provides the id needed for that tool, making it highly distinguishable.
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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use it to find the id for toggle-token-condition.' This provides clear context and implies that if you need to toggle a condition, you should first call this tool. It does not mention alternatives, but the explicit usage scenario is sufficient, especially given the large sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.