Retrieve all swappable container slots on a programmable, showing each slot's occupied or empty status for game scene inspection.
List all slots (swappable containers) on a programmable with their occupied/empty status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| programmable | Yes | Programmable name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return semantics ('occupied/empty status'), which is real behavioral information beyond a bare list, but says nothing about ordering, permissions, or pagination 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the clarifying parenthetical and status detail packed in without waste.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what it lists and what status information comes back. Sufficient, though ordering/format of the result is left unspecified.
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% for the single 'programmable' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The phrase 'on a programmable' merely echoes the parameter without adding format or syntax detail; 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 (List) and resource (slots), and helpfully parenthesizes what slots are ('swappable containers') plus the scope ('on a programmable'). It is clearly distinguishable from list_fonts/list_atlases, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools to consider. Usage is only implied by the name and the 'on a programmable' scoping.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.