sb3_list_spritesRetrieve all sprites in the current Scratch project with their position, size, and media attributes to inspect or edit project contents.
Every sprite with position/size/media. (proxied)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions output scope and the cryptic '(proxied)' tag; it does not state read-only behavior, project context, or any error/edge-case 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?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with no filler. The only questionable element is '(proxied)', which is unexplained and may confuse rather than clarify.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the required context is minimal. Still, the description omits that this lists sprites in the currently open project and leaves '(proxied)' undefined, so it is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent to resolve. The description does not need to add parameter details because the schema is already complete and trivial.
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 identifies the resource (sprites) and the included fields (position/size/media), which is enough to distinguish it from block/target tools. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb phrase like 'Lists every sprite...'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sb3_get_target or sb3_get_target_json. It also does not mention that it operates on the currently open project, which is important context for correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.