scratch-unified-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Project List Assets

project_list_assets

List the costumes and sounds declared by a sprite in a Scratch project. Specify the sprite name and optional project path to inspect its assets.

Instructions

List the costumes and sounds a sprite declares.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sprite": "<sprite>"
    },
    "name": "project_list_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	Project to inspect. Defaults to the active project.
`sprite`	Yes	Sprite name, i.e. its .gs filename without the extension. The Stage is "stage".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sounds`	Yes
`sprite`	Yes
`costumes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'declares' indicates per-sprite scope, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, project state requirements, or error behavior. For a simple inspection tool this is modest but acceptable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple listing tool, the description plus complete input schema and output schema cover the essential information. The main gap is the absence of usage routing relative to sibling tools, but this is a minor shortfall given the tool's low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully documents both parameters (path and sprite), so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The description adds only the context that the listed assets belong to a sprite, which is already reflected in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') on a clear resource ('costumes and sounds a sprite declares'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is easily distinguished from asset-modifying siblings like project_add_costume and project_add_sound.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sb3_list_sprites, project_summary, or project_info. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided, so an agent must infer usage from the name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server