get_tracked_modsRetrieve your tracked mods from Nexus Mods, with optional filtering by game domain. Get a list of mods you follow to manage updates and endorsements.
Mods you track (game domain + mod id). Optional game filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | No | Game domain name as in site URLs, e.g. "skyrimspecialedition", "fallout4", "stardewvalley" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail about the returned tuple shape, but it does not address empty results, authentication needs, pagination, or other runtime behavior.
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 extremely concise, front-loading the core purpose and adding the optional-filter detail in a single sentence. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.
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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and robust annotations, the description is largely complete. The parenthetical defines the output shape in place of an output schema; one could ask for explicit mention of authentication or empty-result behavior, but these are not critical gaps given the tool's low complexity.
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 fully documents the only parameter, 'game', with an example value. The description merely restates that the game parameter is optional, adding no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 resource ('mods you track') and the optional game filter, and the parenthetical '(game domain + mod id)' clarifies the shape of what is returned. It is more specific than a tautology and is distinguishable from the sibling list_mods by the 'tracked' scope, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.
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 when to use this tool: when you want to see mods the user tracks, with an optional game filter. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings like list_mods or track_mod, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.