Lists all methods in a specified type that can be Harmony patched, with optional name filtering and inherited method inclusion, to identify patch targets in game assemblies.
List all methods in a type that can be Harmony patched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Optional method name filter | |
| assembly | Yes | Assembly key | |
| type_name | Yes | Full type name | |
| include_inherited | No | Include inherited methods (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. "List" implies a read-only operation, but the definition never clarifies what qualifies as "patchable" (e.g., excludes abstract/generic/compiler-generated methods), whether inherited members are scanned, or what happens for an unknown type/assembly.
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 zero filler or redundancy. It is appropriately terse for a simple list operation, though that brevity comes at the cost of the gaps noted elsewhere.
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 Harmony-patching discovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits the relationship to generate_harmony_patch/validate_patch_target, the return shape (method signatures? patchability reasons?), and any workflow ordering. An agent can guess intent but not usage.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema, which sets the baseline of 3. The description only loosely echoes that the scope is a type; it adds no semantics for filter, assembly keys, or include_inherited behavior.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ("List all methods") scoped to a type and qualified by the Harmony-patchable criterion, which is meaningfully narrower than generic listing tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like inspect_type or validate_patch_target, so an agent must infer which listing entry point to use.
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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this is the discovery step before generate_harmony_patch or an alternative to inspect_type. No prerequisites (assembly must be loaded first?) and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.