pit_leaderboardLadder (Glicko-2) and belt holder for a game (chess, connect4 or liars-dice; each has its own ratings). House players appear unranked at their fixed ratings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | No | chess, connect4 (Connect Four) or liars-dice (Liar's Dice, a dice bluffing game, points only). Rules: GET /v1/games. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / game / descriptionAdded value: +"chess, connect4 (Connect Four) or liars-dice (Liar's Dice, a dice bluffing game, points only). Rules: GET /v1/games."Input schema / properties / game / enumPrevious value: -[
- "chess"
-]New value: +[
+ "chess",
+ "connect4",
+ "liars-dice"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior detail: ratings use Glicko-2 and house players appear unranked at fixed ratings, which shapes how an agent interprets results. It does not say what happens if the optional game parameter is omitted (default game vs all games), which is a notable omission for a zero-required-param tool.
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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core resource is front-loaded and the parenthetical covers scope efficiently.
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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the result conceptually contains (ladder, belt holder, unranked house players). It is missing the behavior of the optional game argument and any hint at result shape or size, leaving an agent to guess the default call.
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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the game list and adds that each game maintains separate ratings, but contributes no format or default behavior 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?
The description names the resource precisely (Glicko-2 ladder plus belt holder) and scopes it per game, so an agent can distinguish it from state-oriented siblings like pit_match_state or pit_board_read. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the meaning is unambiguous.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, or what prerequisites (e.g. needing to be registered) apply. The only routing hint is that each game has its own ratings, which is informational rather than usage guidance.
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.