list_stampsLists saved map stamps from the project's .mcp-stamps folder with name, size, tileset ID, and event count, so you can choose a stamp before placing it. Uncommitted stamps are excluded.
List the stamps saved in /.mcp-stamps/ (name, size, tilesetId, event count), sorted by name. Stamps captured inside a changeset that is still open are not listed until it is committed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the important non-obvious behavior: the stable sort order and the visibility rule that uncommitted captives from an open changeset are excluded. It could go further by explicitly stating it is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is only implied by 'List'.
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 compact sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns and where it reads from, the second adds the one caveat an agent would otherwise trip on. Every clause earns its place, with no restating of the title or name.
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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return field set, ordering, storage location, and the changeset visibility caveat. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result without opening anything else.
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, so the schema is trivially complete and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for anything.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource ('stamps saved in <project>/.mcp-stamps/'), and it enumerates the returned fields (name, size, tilesetId, event count) and sort order. Nothing is ambiguous, and 'stamps' is clearly distinct from the sibling list_* tools (list_maps, list_assets, list_records).
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's evident this is the discovery step before place_stamp or after capture_stamp, but the description never names an alternative or states when to prefer it. It does give one concrete operational constraint — stamps in an open changeset are hidden until commit — which is useful context but not selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.