Lists every metric for judging FPS game feel, with scene, unit, better direction, scoring rule, and whether the rule is estimated or evidence-based.
Every metric: its scene, unit, which way is better, its rule and the rule's source (estimate or evidence).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 does disclose the shape of each returned record (scene, unit, direction, rule, rule source), which is genuine value, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, pagination, or volume limits.
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 telegraphic sentence with no filler, and the scope ('Every metric') is front-loaded. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly hurts readability but wastes no words.
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?
No output schema exists, so describing the returned fields is exactly the right content, and it covers the salient ones for a metric. Missing details are minor: ordering, pagination, and whether any filtering is possible.
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 is 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or omit.
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 and its scope ('Every metric') and enumerates the attributes returned, so an agent knows this is an unfiltered enumeration of metrics. It does not differentiate from siblings like list_scenes or list_checklist, but the name and returned fields make the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling list tools. The only clue is the word 'Every', implying an unfiltered dump, but the agent must infer that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.