pit_lobbyWho is here, open callouts and five live games. Reading with a key refreshes your presence for ten minutes. 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains the non-read-only side effect: reading with a key refreshes your presence for ten minutes. It also spells out the auth paths (Authorization, X-Pit-Key, or key argument), adding context beyond the annotations. This is consistent with the idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false declarations, though return/pagination behavior is not described.
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?
Three short sentences with the content summary front-loaded, followed by the side-effect and auth notes. Little waste, though 'five live games' is slightly ambiguous phrasing.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the presence-refresh side effect, and how authentication is supplied. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.
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% for the single key parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description restates the key-handling (header preferred over key argument) and adds only marginal value 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 concrete content returned – who is present, open callouts, and live games – so the agent knows this is the lobby overview. The verb is implicit (a read/fetch) and it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like pit_list_callouts or pit_whoami, but the resource is clear.
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?
Usage is implied: this is the lobby view you read to see current presence and activity. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus pit_board_read, pit_list_callouts, or pit_lobby_* siblings, and no exclusions, so context is left to inference.
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.