Find what games user1 owns that user2 has on their wishlist. Shows potential trading opportunities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user1 | Yes | BGG username whose collection will be checked. Use 'SELF' for yourself. | |
| user2 | Yes | BGG username whose wishlist will be checked against user1's collection |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / user1 / descriptionPrevious value: -"BGG username whose collection will be checked. When the user refers to themselves (me, my, I), use 'SELF' as the value."New value: +"BGG username whose collection will be checked. Use 'SELF' for yourself."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the matching logic (owns vs wishlist) but fails to disclose read-only status, error handling (invalid usernames), or return format (list of game IDs vs full details).
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 efficient sentences with zero waste. The first states the core function immediately; the second states the value proposition. Every word 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?
Given 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the input contract. However, it could briefly mention the return structure (e.g., 'returns matching game titles') since no output schema exists to document the response format.
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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the directional relationship (user1's collection vs user2's wishlist) but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or emphasize the 'SELF' convention beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses specific verbs ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource (games user1 owns vs user2's wishlist). It distinguishes itself from siblings like bgg-collection (simple lookup) and bgg-search by explicitly targeting cross-user trade matching.
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 phrase 'Shows potential trading opportunities' implies the use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus bgg-collection (e.g., 'Use this when you want to find trades between two specific users rather than viewing a single collection').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.