Dump the scene graph tree for a running hx-multianim game to inspect object types, positions, visibility, and names.
Dump the scene graph tree showing object types, positions, visibility, and names
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Maximum depth to traverse (default: 10) |
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 burden; 'Dump' weakly implies a read-only snapshot but never states it. It does disclose the content of the traversal (types, positions, visibility, names), which is useful, but omits whether traversal is truncated, how large output can get, or side effects.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource comes first and the output contents are listed compactly.
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 one-optional-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, naming the fields included in the dump largely covers what an agent needs. The remaining gaps are behavioral (snapshot timing, size, read-only guarantee) rather than structural.
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% and the single optional 'depth' parameter is fully documented with its default in the schema. The description adds nothing about depth semantics, so the 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 ('Dump') and resource ('scene graph tree') and enumerates the payload (object types, positions, visibility, names). It is distinguishable from visual siblings like screenshot, though it never explicitly names an alternative.
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?
There is no indication of when to prefer this over screenshot, inspect_element, list_interactives, or get_screen_state. The agent must infer the debugging/inspection scenario entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.