GameFork MCP

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no authentication is required and that the tool accesses public games only. However, it omits details about error states, rate limits, or caching, which would improve transparency.

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 two sentences long, bilingual, and front-loaded with key information. Every part is useful with no redundancy.

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 the simplicity (1 parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return fields and constraints. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning error behaviors, but it meets the needs of a straightforward metadata retrieval tool.

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%, with game_id fully documented (format UUID, source from search_games). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states 'Get metadata of a public game' and lists specific fields (title, fork lineage, counts, genres, verification status), making the purpose explicit and differentiating it from siblings like get_game_code or search_games.

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?

The description notes 'No authentication required' and provides context that it fetches metadata for public games. It does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling names suggest natural boundaries.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses no authentication needed and notes that fork/publish actions require OAuth. However, it does not specify behavior for invalid game IDs or non-public games, nor does it detail the response structure beyond 'code plus format info'.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes both English and Japanese, which adds length but is justified for an international tool. Every sentence contributes value, though the bilingual repetition slightly reduces conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the retrieval of game code and format info. It also notes authentication requirements, making it complete enough for most use cases. However, it could mention error handling or output structure explicitly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single required parameter (game_id) already described with UUID format and bilingual explanation. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the code of a public game (HTML/JS string or TIC-80 base64) along with format info. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_game (likely metadata) and search_games by focusing on code retrieval.

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?

The description explicitly states 'No authentication required' and mentions that fork/publish requires OAuth. This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate (reading public code) vs when additional auth steps are needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_game or search_games.

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

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

The description mentions the output format (card grid widget), which adds value beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects, which is acceptable for a read-only search tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a bilingual version without unnecessary fluff. Every part earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately notes the return type (card grid widget). All parameters are covered, and the search behavior is fully explained. Complements sibling tools well.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the effect of omitting both tags, and clarifies exact match for hashtag and substring search for title. The Japanese translations are redundant but not harmful.

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 clearly states the tool searches public games by title and/or hashtag, and notes that omitting both returns latest games. It distinguishes from siblings get_game and get_game_code by focusing on search vs. retrieval.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use (searching games) and parameter combinations, including the special case of omitting both parameters. Does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but context implies differentiation.

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