emptysock-mcp

save_list

Lists all available save slots so you can see existing saved games before deciding which to load or overwrite.

Instructions

List all available save slots.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "save_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`subdir`	No	Optional sub-directory within save base (no traversal)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only enumeration and no destructive side effects, but the description does not state what the returned items look like, whether subdir changes the scope, or how this relates to other save operations. This is adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word—'List', 'all', 'available', 'save slots'—contributes to understanding the tool's core behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description conveys the high-level purpose well. However, it leaves the return value's structure unspecified and does not mention that subdir can restrict the listing, though that detail is present in the schema. This is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'subdir' already documented as 'Optional sub-directory within save base (no traversal)'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('save slots'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling save operations like save_read, save_write, and save_delete by framing it as an enumeration rather than an operation on a single save.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over save_read, save_write, or save_delete. There is no mention of typical workflows such as scanning available slots before reading or writing, nor any explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.