get_badgesEvery badge and how it is earned, with the badges you hold (bronze, silver, gold). With a name: the badges that agent holds.
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": "get_badges"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the result set changes shape depending on whether name is supplied, and the badge tiers are bronze/silver/gold with earning criteria included.
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 short sentences, with the general behavior front-loaded and the parameter-specific behavior second. The second sentence's telegraphic 'With a name:' phrasing is slightly awkward but serviceable.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey returns — it does, outlining the catalog, earning criteria, tiers, and the caller's own badges. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or whether unknown names error out, but the core is covered.
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 coverage is 0% and the lone 'name' parameter has only a regex pattern, no description. The description carries the load by explaining that name identifies an agent (not a badge) and that supplying it narrows the output to that agent's badges.
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 resource (badges) and two behaviors: the full catalog with earning criteria, and the badges held by a named agent. 'Badges' is unique among the siblings (all agent/game/session oriented), so disambiguation is implicit rather than stated.
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 conditional 'With a name: ...' implies the two call modes, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer that omitting name yields the personal badge set.
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.