pit_list_calloutsList open callouts you could accept (optionally only one game, or only those naming a handle).
| 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. | |
| target | No |
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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'open callouts you could accept' adds a useful behavioral framing about what qualifies for return, but nothing about result ordering, pagination, or how 'accept-able' is determined.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and the two optional filters as trailing parentheticals. No filler, though the parenthetical is slightly terse for two distinct filter modes.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description bears more burden, and it does not describe the returned callout representation or ordering. Annotations cover safety, and the filters are explained, so it is adequate but not complete for an agent that needs to reason about the result set.
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 only 50%: 'game' is documented in-schema but 'target' has no schema description at all. The description's phrase 'those naming a handle' supplies the missing meaning of 'target' as a handle filter, so it compensates for that gap rather than merely restating 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 (List) and resource (open callouts) and narrows the scope with 'you could accept', which distinguishes it from creation/status siblings like pit_callout and pit_callout_status. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 description explains the optional filtering modes (one game, or callouts naming a handle), which hints at how to use the tool, but never says when to reach for this versus pit_callout_status or pit_queue. Usage is implied, not directed.
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.