List data layers in load order with source timestamps and entry counts to help Baldur's Gate 3 modders diagnose mod conflicts and verify active sources.
List data layers in load order with source timestamps and entry counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does convey what the listing contains (load order, timestamps, entry counts), which implies a read-only inspection operation, but it says nothing about permissions, cost, or ordering guarantees beyond 'load order'.
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 no filler; the resource and its salient output attributes are stated immediately.
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?
With an output schema present and zero input parameters, the description does not need to explain return values or inputs, and it supplies a useful one-line summary of the result shape. Only the missing usage routing against sibling tools keeps it from being fully complete.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter semantics to add and the description does not waste words on nonexistent inputs.
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?
Uses a specific verb+resource ('List data layers') and adds scope detail (load order, source timestamps, entry counts). It is clearly distinguishable from the mutation siblings bg3_add_mod_layer / bg3_remove_mod_layer, though it never names them explicitly.
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, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read-side counterpart to the add/remove layer tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.