poker.games.listReturns the planning poker games of a team, newest first, with how many tasks each of them has and how many already carry an estimate. Personal games outside a team are not exposed over MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many games to return. Default: 20, maximum: 50. | |
| team_id | No | Team to list games for. Required when more than one team is available — call retro.teams.list first. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: ordering (newest first), inclusion of task/estimate counts, and exclusion of personal games. This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect without contradicting annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause conveys meaningful information without redundancy. No fluff or filler.
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?
For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, the ordering, and a key limitation (personal games not exposed). It could detail return object fields, but this is reasonable for the tool's simplicity.
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 100% and the parameters are well-described in the schema (limit with default/max, team_id with condition). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool returns planning poker games for a team, with ordering (newest first) and specific data content (task counts and estimates). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like poker.game.get (single game) and poker.games.create (creation).
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 specifies when team_id is required (more than one team available) and instructs to call retro.teams.list first, providing a direct prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with overlapping tools like retro.actions.list and retro.board.actions.list explicitly differentiated in descriptions. The naming hierarchy (domain.resource.subresource.verb) helps keep properties separate.
Tools follow a consistent dot-separated resource-verb pattern, with singular/plural usage following standard collection vs. single-resource conventions (e.g., games.list vs. game.get). All verbs are lowercase with underscores, making the surface predictable.
With 29 tools spanning two distinct domains (poker planning and retrospectives), the surface feels heavy and may overwhelm users. The calibration suggests 25+ is excessive, and splitting into separate servers could improve focus.
The tool set covers most management tasks for both poker games and retrospectives, but lacks a core operation for adding messages/cards to a board, which is essential for a retro tool. Also, no board creation or deletion tools, leaving some lifecycle operations incomplete.