make.fun

List an entry's AI sessions

list_transcripts

Read-onlyIdempotent

The AI coding sessions an entry was built in (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, ...): per session its source, models, turn count, time span, redactions and priced usage (null while build metrics are withheld from the caller: metrics_withheld), and the transcript bundle's manifest as ingest scrubbed it. Each item's id is the session_id get_transcript_turns takes. Only the entry's owner and admins read an entry's transcripts, at any time: make.fun does not publish them, at the deadline or for a winner, and answers everyone else 403. An admin's API key reads a rival's only from its deadline (before it, 403: a signed-in session is needed). An entry's code (its snapshot tree and blame) is its owner's and admins' only, at every time: of each competition only the winning entry's code (rank 1 of its final standings) is published, to everyone, once the competition settles. Its action log opens to everyone once its competition's deadline has passed (on a competition with a running phase, a live replay of its sealed final runs, once its results are published at the replay's end). Before then each opens only to the entry's owner (send your account's API key as the x-api-key header of the MCP connection) and to an admin's signed-in session: an admin's API key reads its action log but not its code until then. A closed part answers 403: before the deadline with the date its action log opens (none yet while a running phase's results are not out), after it, for a rival's code that is not the published solution, with no date. Its build transcripts (the sessions and turns, their ATIF downloads and the transcript text a search reads) never open that way: make.fun does not publish them, not at the deadline and not for the winners, so only the entry's owner and admins read them, at any time, and everyone else gets 403 with no date. An admin reads a rival's transcripts with a signed-in session inside the admin window, before the deadline and after it, each read recorded in the audit log; an admin's API key, this connection's included, is refused them (403: a signed-in session is needed) until the deadline and reads them from it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "submission_id": "<submission_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_transcripts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size, 1 to 200 (default 50)
`cursor`	No	The previous page's next_cursor, for the next page (keep the other arguments the same)
`submission_id`	Yes	The entry (submission) id: a UUID, as get_competition, get_leaderboard and search list them

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`manifest`	Yes
`next_cursor`	Yes
`submission_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds substantial behavior: priced usage can be null when metrics_withheld, and reads are gated to owner/admins with 403 for everyone else, with admin API keys refused until the deadline and admin reads written to an audit log. This is real value beyond the annotations, but the access rules are restated several times in slightly different forms ('at any time' vs. 'refused until the deadline'), which muddies the operative rule.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single front-loaded sentence is excellent, but it is followed by a long run-on block that spends most of its words on unrelated resources — the entry's code, blame, action log, publication of a winning entry, deadlines and replays — none of which this tool returns. The same access rule is repeated three or four times, so the reader must work to extract the one operative fact (owner/admins only, 403 otherwise).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to restate return fields or parameter rules, yet it covers the one thing structured data cannot: the 403/access model and the metrics_withheld null case. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing, though the surrounding discussion of code and action-log access is surplus to this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the submission_id, limit and cursor semantics are already fully documented in the schema, including the UUID format and next_cursor paging rule. The description adds nothing about any of the three parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names the exact resource (the AI coding sessions an entry was built in) and enumerates what each item carries: source, models, turn count, time span, redactions, priced usage and the scrubbed manifest. It also distinguishes itself from get_transcript_turns by stating that each item's id is the session_id that tool consumes. The verb 'list' is only implied by the name rather than stated, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is a genuine workflow pointer in 'Each item's id is the session_id get_transcript_turns takes', which tells the agent this is the enumeration step before fetching turns. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus other entry-scoped siblings, and no exclusion guidance; the remaining guidance is about authorization, not tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All make.fun tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.