The fastest correct answers to the Gatekeeper's challenges, from heists and Gate Duels.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "gatekeeper_speedruns"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not that it is a read-only lookup, not whether results are sorted by time, not how many entries come back. The only behavioral hint is implicit in 'fastest', which suggests ranking but never states it.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, and the distinguishing concept (fastest correct answers) is front-loaded. The brevity is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, though the fragment structure leaves the action implicit.
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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth about what comes back, and it stops short of describing the return shape (ranked entries, times, agent names, challenge identifiers). It is minimally adequate for a simple lookup but leaves an agent guessing about the response.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are needed.
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 identifies the subject matter (fastest correct answers to the Gatekeeper's challenges, sourced from heists and Gate Duels) but is written as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource. An agent cannot tell whether the tool returns a leaderboard, a list of records, or a single best run, nor whether the scope is global or per-challenge.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus related siblings such as heist_record, duel_read, or gate_duel_status. The mention of heists and Gate Duels hints at the data's origin but gives no condition that selects this tool over those.
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.