Shows the Stage, sprites, and devices in a project. Use it to identify available targets for editing or validation.
List Stage/sprites/devices in a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to .mblock (omit if project-attach set) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific resource types (Stage/sprites/devices) but does not disclose return format, ordering, or any limitations. This is a slight addition beyond annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the parameter context is appropriately relegated to the schema. Perfectly efficient.
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 listing tool with one parameter fully documented in the schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough to call it correctly. The absence of output schema is compensated by the simple nature of the listing, though it would benefit from a note on what the returned list contains. Overall, adequately complete.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'path' (Path to .mblock, omit if project-attach set). The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full weight.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Stage/sprites/devices in a project'. It is specific enough to indicate what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_devices' which might be a subset, so it loses a point for sibling 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_devices', 'list_blocks'). The parameter note about 'omit if project-attach set' hints at a prerequisite but does not explain when to choose this tool over others. No exclusions or alternate routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.