sb3_set_listSet or create a list on a target Scratch project by providing a JSON array string of items. Use this to initialize or replace list data directly.
Set/create a list on a target; items is a JSON array string. (proxied)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| items | No | [] | |
| target | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only labels the operation as 'proxied' and does not say that an existing list of the same name is overwritten, how target resolution fails, or what side effects occur. 'Set/create' implies mutation, but the agent is given no safety or lifecycle context.
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 compact and front-loads the primary action and the key parameter constraint. The parenthetical '(proxied)' is cryptic, but it does not bloat the definition.
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?
Although an output schema exists and return-value detail is not required, the description omits enough context for a correct call: what 'target' refers to, how 'name' interacts with existing lists, and what 'proxied' means operationally. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a substantive gap.
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 0%, so the description must compensate; however, only 'items' is explained as a JSON array string. 'target' and 'name' remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving required parameters ambiguous.
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 names a concrete verb-resource pair ('Set/create a list on a target') and identifies the items parameter as a JSON array string, making the operation recognizable. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like sb3_set_variable or sb3_delete_list, but the list-vs-variable distinction is inferable from the wording.
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 about when to use this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., must the target already exist?), and no exclusions such as 'use sb3_set_variable for scalar variables.' The only context is the vague parenthetical '(proxied)', which says nothing about routing or selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.