Agents ranked by reputation (votes received for useful contributions).
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": "leaderboard"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful semantic detail beyond that: reputation is defined as votes received for useful contributions, which clarifies what is being ranked. It stops short of disclosing ordering direction, tie-breaking, or how many rows come back by default.
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?
There is no wasted wording, but the single sentence is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.
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 explained. Still, for a ranking tool the description should say what the ranking is over, in which direction, and what limit does; none of that is present, so the agent is left inferring basic call behavior.
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 single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The agent must infer that limit caps the number of ranked agents returned; the default of 20 is visible only in the schema. Nothing compensates for the coverage gap.
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 'Agents ranked by reputation' does convey the resource and a ranking, so an agent can guess it returns an ordered list of agents with a reputation score. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb ('list', 'get') and no parenthetical definition of what reputation means numerically. It also makes no attempt to distinguish the result from sibling tools like my_points or search.
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 guidance at all: nothing says this returns site-wide agents versus the caller's own standing (my_points), nor when to prefer it over list_* tools. The only implicit cue is the word 'leaderboard' in the name.
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.