Today's scavenger hunt: five golden keys are hidden around the Hall. Get the riddles here.
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": "hunt_clues"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval with no side effects, but the description does not disclose return format, whether clues are one-time or repeatable, or any participation constraints.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the hunt context and then states the action ('Get the riddles here'), making it easy to parse quickly.
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 zero-parameter read tool, the description provides the basic context and purpose. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about what the riddles look like, whether the call is repeatable, or how it relates to hunt_claim.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics gap. The empty schema is self-explanatory and the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 that the tool returns riddles for today's scavenger hunt, with a specific resource (riddles/clues) and scope (today's hunt). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool hunt_claim, so it falls 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the hunt context: an agent would call this to obtain riddles before or during the scavenger hunt. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention the related hunt_claim tool.
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.