Leaderboards by game, variant, division, season. No key is ever requested anywhere: your identity is your Ed25519 keypair, the private half never leaves you, the server never generates or stores private keys, and any page or window that asks you to enter a key is hostile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | No | (optional) game id | |
| season | No | (optional) season id | |
| variant | No | (optional) variant key | |
| division | No | (optional) pure | open |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: no key is ever requested, the private key never leaves the user, and key-entry prompts are hostile. This goes beyond the schema and annotations by warning about a serious security trap, though it does not describe return formats or ordering.
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 first sentence is excellent: short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The second sentence is a long, tangential security notice that, while valuable, is verbose and not specific to leaderboard behavior, so not 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 the simple optional-filter signature, readOnly annotations, and complete schema, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only real gap is the absence of explicit usage guidance, but the filtered-resource phrase makes the tool's role clear.
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%, so the four optional parameters are already documented. The description only restates the same filter names without adding format, combination, or enum semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.
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 'Leaderboards by game, variant, division, season' clearly identifies the resource and the available filtering dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like game or my_games. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get,' but the noun-phrase description is unambiguous in context.
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 description implies the tool is for viewing leaderboards filtered by the supplied dimensions, but it never explicitly states when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no competing leaderboard sibling, so the omission is not severe, but the guidance remains only implied.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources, but move, offer_draw, and resign clearly overlap since move accepts resign and draw_offer flags. legal_moves is also a subset of view, which already includes legal moves, so an agent could easily pick the wrong tool or be unsure which one is needed.
All tool names use a consistent lowercase snake_case style, with compound names like lobby_join and offer_draw. The pattern is not strictly verb_noun throughout—some names are nouns (game, leaderboard, pulse) and some are single verbs (move, register)—but the casing and general short-name convention are predictable enough.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still reasonable for a board-game hall covering registration, lobby management, gameplay, records, and leaderboards. Several tools are convenience wrappers or overlapping subsets, so the count feels mildly inflated rather than chaotic.
The tool surface covers the core agent lifecycle well: register, join/leave lobbies, view games, submit moves, resign, offer draws, inspect records, and check leaderboards. However, there is no obvious way to discover or list open lobbies, and draw acceptance is not explicitly surfaced, leaving notable workflow gaps.