Lists ESM rewrite script packages with their IDs, active revisions, and enabled state so you can inspect available scripts; use get_rewrite_script_package to read source modules.
Lists ESM rewrite script packages with their ids, active revisions, and enabled state. Use get_rewrite_script_package to read source modules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned shape (ids, active revisions, enabled state), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or required permissions. Adequate for a simple read-only list, but not rich.
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 tight sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool pointer. Every clause earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields that come back. For a parameterless list tool this is close to sufficient; a note on volume/pagination would make it 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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema. No parameter-level explanation is needed or missing.
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 verb (Lists) and resource (ESM rewrite script packages), and names the returned fields (ids, active revisions, enabled state). It explicitly differentiates itself from get_rewrite_script_package by scoping that sibling to source-module reads, so an agent can separate the two without opening 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 second sentence routes the agent to the correct alternative for reading source modules, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance that matters here. It stops short of exclusions (e.g. when not to list) but the primary routing decision is made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.