Introspect Dragon's Dogma 2 managed types to list method signatures or fields, optionally filtered by substring, for live Lua introspection via REFramework.
Introspect a managed type: kind 'methods' (signatures) or 'fields', optionally filtered by a substring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | methods | |
| filter | No | ||
| type_name | Yes |
| 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 must carry behavioral disclosure. The word 'Introspect' strongly implies a read-only operation and the description explains the two kind modes, but it never explicitly confirms there are no side effects, whether authentication is needed, or how results are returned.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded, information-dense, and contains no filler. It states the operation, the main mode distinction, and the optional filter in one pass.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition still leaves the meaning/format of 'type_name' and the scope of 'managed type' underspecified for an introspection tool.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It usefully clarifies that 'kind' accepts 'methods' (for signatures) or 'fields' and that 'filter' is a substring match, but it leaves 'type_name' and the notion of a 'managed type' unexplained.
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 uses a specific verb ('Introspect') and resource ('a managed type'), and names the two supported kind values. It does not differentiate from siblings such as dd2_enum, so it stops short of 5.
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?
It explains the two modes ('methods' vs 'fields') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like dd2_enum, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is merely implied by the kind options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.