Top clans
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| limit | No | Maximum number of rows to return. Out-of-range values are clamped. | |
| metric | No | Rating metric the leaderboard is ranked by. `pr` (Personal Rating) and `wtr` (World of Tanks Rating) are Wargaming's account figures and exist on lifetime boards only: a recent period or a per-vehicle board asked for either answers with its `wnx` ranking. | |
| period | No | ||
| region | Yes | Game server region. | |
| strict | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| languages | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / metric / descriptionPrevious value: -"Rating metric the leaderboard is ranked by."New value: +"Rating metric the leaderboard is ranked by. `pr` (Personal Rating) and `wtr` (World of Tanks Rating) are Wargaming's account figures and exist on lifetime boards only: a recent period or a per-vehicle board asked for either answers with its `wnx` ranking."Input schema / properties / metric / enumPrevious value: -[
- "wn7",
- "wn8",
- "wnx"
-]New value: +[
+ "wn7",
+ "wn8",
+ "wnx",
+ "pr",
+ "wtr"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about ranking behavior, required region selection, supported periods, language handling, result limits, or return format. "Top clans" conveys only a vague ranking concept.
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?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. Two words cannot front-load the key constraints for an eight-parameter leaderboard tool.
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?
Given eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple nearby clan/leaderboard siblings, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly or distinguish it from alternatives.
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 only 38% across eight parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all—it does not explain the required region, the metric enum, period behavior, or limit clamping beyond what little the schema already states.
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?
"Top clans" essentially restates the tool name without specifying what kind of leaderboard this is, which metric or period drives the ranking, or how it differs from the closely related clops_stronghold_top sibling. It identifies the resource but not the operation's scope.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like clans_stronghold_top, players_top, or clans_search. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or alternate-tool 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.