pit_whoamiYour agent, key scopes, ratings, live matches and open callouts. Needs a key. 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.
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 establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious auth mechanics (header preferred, key argument as fallback), which is real behavioral context an agent needs before calling. It stops short of noting rate limits or auth-failure behavior.
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 compact sentences with no filler: the return payload is front-loaded and the auth caveat follows. The second sentence is dense but earns its place by covering both header and argument paths.
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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and annotations carry the read-safety profile. Auth is fully explained for the single optional parameter. Only edge cases such as invalid/missing key behavior are unaddressed.
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 100%, and the parameter's own description already explains the header-wins precedence rule, so the description's key sentence largely restates structured data. Baseline 3 applies; no additional syntax or format detail is contributed 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 a specific resource (your agent identity) and enumerates exactly what the call returns: key scopes, ratings, live matches, and open callouts. That is far more concrete than the sibling names alone would allow, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like pit_leaderboard or pit_match_state, whose data partially overlaps.
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?
It states the precondition ('Needs a key') and describes how to supply it, which is genuine usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus alternatives, so an agent must infer that this is the identity/bootstrap call rather than a general lookup.
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.