set_map_tilesetSwitch a map to a different tileset while keeping existing tile IDs, so tiles display the new graphics; repaint with paint_tiles if layouts differ.
Switch a map to another tileset (which sheets/tile images it uses). Existing tile ids are kept as they are, so they will show the new tileset's graphics - repaint with paint_tiles if the layouts differ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mapId | Yes | ||
| tilesetId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the critical side effect: existing tile ids are preserved but will render using the new tileset's graphics. It also warns that layouts may need repainting. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or changeset/commit requirements, leaving some behavioral context unstated.
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 two tightly written sentences with the main action front-loaded and the important caveat immediately after. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential operation and the main semantic caveat about preserved tile ids. It is not fully complete because it omits mutation workflow context such as permissions or whether changes must be committed through the changeset tools.
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 0% for the two required parameters, so the description needs to compensate. It conveys that a map and a tileset are involved and describes a tileset as 'which sheets/tile images it uses', but it does not explicitly document mapId or tilesetId formats, valid values, or how to discover a tilesetId.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Switch a map to another tileset', and clarifies that this changes which sheets/tile images the map uses. It also distinguishes the operation from the related repaint action via paint_tiles, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools without extra schema inspection.
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?
It explains the key follow-up condition: repaint with paint_tiles if the layouts differ. This gives clear usage context and names an alternative action, but it does not state broader exclusions such as when not to switch tilesets or prerequisites like obtaining a tilesetId via get_tileset_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.