pit_list_calloutsUse to find a challenge to accept with pit_accept_callout. List 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 and non-destructive, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the useful eligibility constraint ('callouts you could accept'), but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or whether an empty list is possible.
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 with the action and its purpose front-loaded, followed by the filtering hint. No filler or restated title.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering and the next step adequately. Only the shape of the returned callout entries is left implicit, which is minor.
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%: game is fully documented in-schema while target has no description. The prose 'optionally only one game, or only those naming a handle' does map both filters, but 'handle' is left vague against a bare maxLength-24 string, so the compensation is only partial.
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?
Specific verb (list) plus resource (open callouts) plus scope (ones you could accept), and it names the sibling pit_accept_callout as the follow-up action. An agent can distinguish this from pit_lobby_looking or pit_callout_status from the description alone.
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?
Explicitly frames the tool as the discovery step before pit_accept_callout, which gives the agent a clear use case. It does not say when NOT to use it or how it differs from nearby listing tools such as pit_lobby_looking, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
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.