list_scriptsLists source files loaded by the Node.js process, excluding internals, so you can locate the right path for a breakpoint. Optionally filter results with a regex.
Source files the process has loaded so far (excluding node: internals). Useful to find the right path for a breakpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Regex to filter paths. |
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 full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral detail beyond the name: the node: internals exclusion and the 'so far' temporal limitation. However, it never states that this is a read-only listing that does not mutate debug state, nor what the returned entries look like (paths only vs. ids).
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the motivating use case. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be tighter.
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 simple read-only listing tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusion rules, and purpose adequately. The main missing piece is confirming the read-only nature, which matters in a live-debug session.
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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'filter' regex parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, which is the correct baseline when the schema already does the work.
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?
States a specific resource (source files the process has loaded) with a clear scope qualifier (excluding node: internals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stack and list_breakpoints, which report different runtime state, without needing to open a schema.
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?
The description gives one implied use case ('find the right path for a breakpoint'), which ties the tool to the set_breakpoint workflow, but names no alternatives and states no when-not-to-use condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.