emptysock-mcp

scene_entity_info

Retrieve an entity's tag, active state, and component list by specifying scene and entity IDs. Use this to inspect or debug game entities in the EmptySock engine.

Instructions

Return the tag, active state, and component list for a specific entity.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sceneId": "<sceneId>",
      "entityId": "<entityId>"
    },
    "name": "scene_entity_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sceneId`	Yes
`entityId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. The phrase 'Return...' implies a read-only operation, and the outputs are enumerated (tag, active state, component list). However, there is no disclosure of edge cases, failure behavior, or whether this reflects live state vs cached state. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be expected, but the tool's scope is at least made clear.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single clear sentence; no filler. Front-loaded with what it returns.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a read-only info tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, an agent needs more context: what the component list looks like, whether tag/state can be absent, ownership/visibility rules, and error behavior. The description is minimal but accurate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% – neither parameter is explained in the input schema. The description implicitly ties the parameters to a scene and an entity ('specific entity', presumably within a scene), which helps, but it doesn't tell the agent how sceneId/entityId should be formatted, whether entityId is local to the scene, or what values are valid. Since coverage is 0%, the description needed to do more than infer the obvious parameter names.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names the exact resource (a specific entity) and the specific data returned: tag, active state, and component list. It clearly distinguishes the tool from raw entity listing (scene_list_entities) or component access (scene_get_component), though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus scene_get_component or scene_list_entities. The description says what it returns, but not the context where this is the right choice, nor exclusions/alternatives.

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