scene_listLists Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord scene files across all or selected modules, showing size, date, and whether terrain/navmesh data exists.
Lists scenes (SceneObj//scene.xscene) of all or selected modules with size, date and whether terrain/navmesh data exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (default 100). | |
| query | No | Substring of the scene name. | |
| module | No | Module filter: id, comma list, official | mods | writable. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that terrain/navmesh presence is reported and the file layout it inspects, which is useful context, but it says nothing about ordering, truncation behavior at the default 100-row limit, or cost on large module sets.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the operation, then the path convention, then the returned fields. Nothing is padded and nothing needs re-reading.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields returned (size, date, terrain/navmesh presence), which is exactly the information an agent would otherwise lack. Combined with annotations covering read-only semantics, it is close to sufficient; only ordering/pagination behavior is unstated.
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%, so the schema already documents limit, query and module (including the official|mods|writable filter). The description only echoes module selection at a high level and adds no syntax, default, or semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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 and resource ('Lists scenes') and even names the storage layout (SceneObj/<name>/scene.xscene) plus the columns returned (size, date, terrain/navmesh presence). That scope ('all or selected modules') implicitly separates it from the single-scene sibling scene_info, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 phrase 'of all or selected modules' implies when to reach for it (broad enumeration across modules) versus a single-scene lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as scene_info. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.