See your Gate Duel: waiting for an opponent, live (with the challenge and time left) or finished.
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": {
"duel_id": "<duel_id>"
},
"name": "gate_duel_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duel_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the status categories and that live status includes the challenge and time left, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or whether the call is strictly read-only.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and efficiently lists the relevant statuses and live details. There is no filler or redundant wording.
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 simple one-parameter status lookup with no output schema, the description covers the possible states and the extra live-status details. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain the required duel_id parameter, which keeps it from being fully complete.
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 sole parameter, duel_id, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains its meaning, format, or where to obtain it. The phrase 'your Gate Duel' is only a weak hint and does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb, 'See', and a specific resource, 'your Gate Duel', and enumerates the three possible states. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as gate_duel, gate_duel_answer, or duel_read.
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: check whether a duel is waiting, live, or finished, and inspect live challenge/time-left details. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative for related actions such as answering or voting.
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.