Lists all 82 checklist items for judging an FPS game's feel, including expected player outcomes and how each item is verified; optionally filter by group A-J.
The checklist: every interaction, what the player should get, and how it is checked (measured or by a person).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | A to J, or leave out for all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the content (interaction, expected result, verification type) but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or result format. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
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 padding. It is slightly awkwardly phrased, but every clause earns its place by describing checklist content.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by sketching the return content, which is the main gap. It still fails to explain the group filter's domain (what A–J correspond to) or confirm the operation is a safe read.
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% — the single group parameter is documented as 'A to J, or leave out for all'. The description adds no additional meaning about what a group represents, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names the resource (the checklist) and describes its contents — every interaction, expected player outcome, and verification method — which is more informative than a bare restatement of the name. However, there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from siblings like list_scenes or list_metrics, so an agent must infer that this is a read/list operation.
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 mention of the optional group filter, and no routing to or away from the sibling list tools. The agent is left to guess when this checklist view is preferable to list_scenes or list_metrics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.