Sauerbraten MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

entity_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List entities and generation-bound references in a Sauerbraten map, optionally restricted to world bounds, to inspect or select level content.

Instructions

List entities and generation-bound references, optionally in world bounds.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "entity_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No
`limit`	No
`bounds`	No
`offset`	No
`revision`	No
`map_epoch`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that results can be constrained to world bounds, saying nothing about default limit 256, offset ceiling of 10000, or what revision/map_epoch do to the result set.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good structure. However, the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than economy, so brevity does not fully earn its place here.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations coverage of result semantics, the definition leaves too much unspecified. An agent cannot tell the return shape, ordering, or the meaning of pagination and epoch parameters from this one line.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions only 'bounds' in loose terms; type, limit, offset, revision, and map_epoch are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving an agent to guess whether revision/map_epoch are filters or consistency tokens.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List entities and generation-bound references'. The word 'List' distinguishes it from the mutation siblings entity_create/entity_update/entity_delete without needing their descriptions. It stops short of a 5 because 'generation-bound references' is left unexplained and no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage signal is 'optionally in world bounds', which hints at one scoping mode. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over map_catalog, region_read, or mapmodel_catalog for enumeration tasks, and no prerequisites or pagination guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.