check_matchesWhere the user stands. It returns every current match request, the number of other people in the pool, and any match. Use it to answer what the user submitted, and who they matched with. A match can appear days later.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'A match can appear days later' tells the agent results are asynchronous and may require re-checking. It also discloses the return shape, but says nothing about auth requirements or result freshness beyond the timing hint.
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?
Four short sentences, roughly 45 words, with the return contents front-loaded in sentence two. The opening fragment 'Where the user stands' is the only slightly wasted phrase, though it functions as framing rather than substance.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so concretely (match requests, pool size, matches). For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, that is enough to call it competently; only the overlap with preview_pool is left unresolved.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline case for this dimension — there are no argument semantics to explain. Schema coverage is reported at 100% for an empty object, so nothing is missing.
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 states a specific resource and enumerates what the tool returns: every current match request, the number of people in the pool, and any match. That distinguishes it from the singular get_match_details, though the differentiation is implied rather than stated. The opening fragment 'Where the user stands' is vague but is immediately resolved by the following sentence.
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?
It gives a usage trigger — 'Use it to answer what the user submitted, and who they matched with' — but names no alternatives and sets no exclusions. Notably, it returns the pool count, which overlaps with the sibling preview_pool, and the description never clarifies which to prefer when the user asks about pool size.
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.