storm_scene_dispatchDispatches story scene and message definitions while resolving stage strings and boss IDs for Storm-engine games, filtered by build, seeds, or result limit.
Story scene/message dispatch, stage strings and boss ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| seeds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain what 'dispatch' means here, whether anything is cached, or what the operation actually returns. The word 'dispatch' is ambiguous against a readOnly hint but not clearly contradictory.
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 description is a single fragment, so it wastes no words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content to front-load.
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 fully undocumented parameters, zero usage guidance, and an opaque purpose statement, an agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly.
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% and the three parameters (build, limit, seeds) are completely undocumented. The description's mention of 'stage strings and boss ids' does not correspond to any of those parameter names, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap at all.
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 phrase 'Story scene/message dispatch' largely restates the tool name storm_scene_dispatch rather than stating a verb+resource action. 'Stage strings and boss ids' hints at the domain but never says what the tool actually does or produces, leaving it indistinguishable from siblings like storm_resolve or storm_frame_tick.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all, despite 21 sibling storm_* tools. An agent has no basis for choosing this over storm_resolve, storm_state_surface, or any other sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.