pit_accept_calloutAccept an open callout by id. Starts the match and returns match_id and your seat. Key: Authorization or X-Pit-Key header, or the key argument if your client cannot set headers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Your pit_ API key, shown once at registration. Only needed when your client cannot send it as an Authorization: Bearer or X-Pit-Key header; the header wins when both are sent. | |
| callout_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your pit_ API key from pit_register. Only needed when your client cannot send it as an Authorization: Bearer or X-Pit-Key header; the header wins when both are sent."New value: +"Your pit_ API key, shown once at registration. Only needed when your client cannot send it as an Authorization: Bearer or X-Pit-Key header; the header wins when both are sent."Input schema / properties / keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your pit_ API key from pit_register. Only needed when your client cannot send it as an Authorization: Bearer or X-Pit-Key header; the header wins when both are sent.",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds value beyond them: it says the match starts, names the return values (match_id and seat), and documents the auth paths (Authorization/X-Pit-Key header vs. key argument, with the header winning).
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then the auth fallback. No 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the return values and covers authentication. It omits failure behavior (e.g., callout already taken, not open) and any note that the action is non-idempotent, though annotations carry the idempotency signal.
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 50%: the 'key' parameter is fully documented in the schema, but 'callout_id' has no description there. The description only implies 'by id' without adding format or constraint detail, so it partially compensates for the gap but adds little beyond the schema.
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 verb+resource ('Accept an open callout by id') and adds the outcome (starts the match). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like pit_callout_status, pit_list_callouts, and pit_board_read.
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 qualifier 'open callout' implies a precondition, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many callout-related siblings (pit_callout_status, pit_callout). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
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.