Recent professional CS2 roster changes, player benchings, stand-ins, and team transfers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return (default 20, max 100). Example: 20. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | true if the tool succeeded | |
| data | No | Result payload when ok is true; null on error | |
| meta | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| partial | No | ||
| pagination | 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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the temporal scope 'recent' but does not specify the exact time window, pagination, or sorting behavior. It provides minimal additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, which is acceptable for a simple read operation but not rich.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There is no fluff, redundant phrasing, or extraneous detail. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is the vague term 'recent', which could benefit from a defined time range. However, for a basic informational tool, the description covers what an agent needs to know to call it 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?
The input schema fully documents the single 'limit' parameter with default, min, max, and an example, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the resource and topic: professional CS2 roster changes, benchings, stand-ins, and transfers. It distinguishes from siblings like cs2_live_scoreboard or cs2_team_map_stats by focusing on roster events rather than match stats. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', making the action implied 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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when roster transfer information is needed. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, and no mention of scenarios where it should not be used. Since no direct sibling offers the same functionality, the lack of alternatives is acceptable, but the description provides no contextual guidance beyond its topic.
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.
