List SCSS/CSS files under the SCSS root and detect architecture layers (tokens, mixins, base, utilities, components, sections) to understand stylesheet structure before editing. Read-only.
List SCSS/CSS files under the project SCSS root and detect architecture layers (tokens, mixins, base, utilities, components, sections). Use to understand stylesheet structure before editing. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. It usefully discloses 'Read-only' and enumerates the layer categories it detects, which is meaningful behavioral context. However it says nothing about the return shape, whether detection is heuristic, or how large projects are handled, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the usage condition and the read-only guarantee. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, safety profile, and the categories returned. It is nearly complete; only the concrete return format is left implicit.
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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The parenthetical layer list describes output categories rather than inputs, adding no parameter meaning but causing no harm.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List SCSS/CSS files under the project SCSS root') plus an additional capability (detecting architecture layers), which cleanly separates it from jekyll_scss_get and jekyll_scss_create. An agent can distinguish it from all siblings without opening a schema.
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?
'Use to understand stylesheet structure before editing' gives a clear when-to-use condition tied to the editing workflow. It does not name alternatives (e.g. jekyll_scss_get for reading a single file), so it falls short of explicit routing, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.