Discover available modding tools for the loaded game engine, grouped by category; optionally specify an engine to target another game.
List all tools available for the currently loaded game engine, grouped by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | Engine to list tools for (uses current game if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly discloses a read-only listing behavior and a grouped-by-category return shape, but says nothing about permissions, what happens when no engine is loaded, or whether results are paginated or cached.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and resource before the scope qualifier and the return grouping. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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, zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys the scope and the category grouping of results. It would be complete with one clause on behavior when no engine is loaded or what the categories represent.
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 the single optional 'engine' parameter is already documented as defaulting to the current game. The description echoes the default-to-current-engine behavior but adds no syntax, format, or accepted-value detail beyond the schema.
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 all tools') scoped to 'the currently loaded game engine', which an agent can act on. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling list_* tools (list_types, list_monobehaviours, list_exports) or clarify whether 'tools' means engine tooling versus the MCP server's own toolset.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'currently loaded game engine' signals the prerequisite that a game/engine must already be loaded. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to any alternative sibling such as detect_engine or game_status for checking engine state first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.