Retrieve an addon's local root directory and file list by name, with optional game selection, so coding agents can inspect Source 2 addon contents.
Show an addon's local root and file list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | No | Game id: one of cs2, deadlock | cs2 |
| name | Yes | Addon name: lowercase [a-z0-9_], e.g. 'jump_arena' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| root | Yes | Local content root of the addon | |
| files | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that: it doesn't say whether the file list is recursive, whether paths are absolute, or what happens when the named addon does not exist locally.
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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the gaps in usage and behavior.
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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the essentials are present. The one thing an agent would still need is the relationship to list_addons and read_addon_file, which is absent from the description.
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 both parameters are well documented in the schema (game id values, the lowercase name pattern with an example). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific action on a specific resource: it returns an addon's local root path and its file list, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby siblings list_addons and read_addon_file, so an agent still has to infer the split.
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 statement of when to call this instead of list_addons (which also deals with addons) or read_addon_file (which reads contents). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.