pit_drawOffer, accept or decline a draw. 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. | |
| action | Yes | ||
| match_id | Yes | Match id, e.g. K7M2Q9XA |
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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine extra context about auth: the key can come from an Authorization/X-Pit-Key header, with headers taking precedence over the key argument. What it does not disclose is the state behavior of offer vs accept vs decline (e.g., whether an offer expires, whose turn is required, whether decline ends the game).
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 short sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the auth detail follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the title beyond the necessary restatement of the actions.
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 should carry more of the behavioral burden for a three-action mutation tool. It covers auth adequately but says nothing about what the caller should expect after offering, accepting, or declining (state transitions, validation failures, turn requirements). Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 67%, and the two parameters that carry descriptions (key, match_id) are well documented in the schema itself. The action enum has no description in the schema, and the description only implicitly covers it via 'offer, accept or decline a draw' — it adds no detail on valid contexts for each action. At mid coverage, the description neither compensates for the gap nor is useless.
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 verb set and resource: offer, accept, or decline a draw. That distinguishes it from siblings like pit_move, pit_play, and pit_resign. It does not, however, name which sibling to prefer in overlapping situations (e.g., is declining a draw different from pit_resign).
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or state conditions (e.g., must a draw have been offered before accept/decline are valid?), and no named alternatives among the many pit_* siblings. The only guidance given concerns authentication, not tool 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.