Lists all asset paths—textures, models, sounds, and language files—inside a Minecraft resource pack directory or .zip file, with an optional limit on returned paths.
List all asset paths (textures, models, sounds, lang) in a resource pack. Supports both directories and .zip files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of asset paths to return (default: all) | |
| packPath | Yes | Path to the resource pack directory or .zip |
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 burden. It conveys read-only listing behavior and the input forms (directory or .zip), but says nothing about output shape, pagination, error handling for missing packs, or permission requirements.
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?
Two compact sentences, zero waste, with the core action and the supported input forms front-loaded.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and input forms adequately. Return format (flat list vs structured) is the only minor gap, and that is largely inferable from 'list all asset paths'.
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%, so both parameters (packPath, limit) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about limit semantics or path formats beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (list) and resource (asset paths within a resource pack) and enumerates the asset categories covered (textures, models, sounds, lang). It's clearly distinct from siblings like validate_rp_structure or compare_rpacks, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative, keeping it just short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as search_rp_on_modrinth or validate_textures, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The 'supports both directories and .zip files' clause hints at applicability but does not tell the agent when to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.