Rengi Forge

leaderboard_boards

Create a board with 100,000 submissions and 365 days; returns keys and a ready JS snippet. Price: $1.00 USDC via x402, charged only on success. Part of Leaderboard: A leaderboard backend for a game in one paid call, no signup: buy a board (100,000 submissions, 1 year), get a board id, a submit key for the game client and an admin key.

Tool call template

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "leaderboard_boards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`sort`	No	desc: higher is better; asc: lower is better (times)	desc
`signed`	No	Require HMAC-signed submissions (for games with a server).
`periods`	No
`maxScore`	No
`minScore`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantive work: it discloses the price ($1.00 USDC via x402), that billing is charged only on success, that no signup is required, and what artifacts the call yields. It omits auth prerequisites and rate limits, but the payment semantics are the materially important behavior for a paid tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The price/charge-on-success line is front-loaded and valuable, but the description restates '100,000 submissions / 1 year' and the keys twice across the first and third segments. It is reasonably sized yet has visible redundancy that dilutes the signal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully explains the return values (board id, submit key, admin key, JS snippet) and the billing model, which covers the main gaps. However, six parameters with 33% coverage and no annotation support leave the calling contract incompletely specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (sort and signed are documented, name/periods/maxScore/minScore are not), and the description adds nothing about any parameter — it never mentions sort direction, signed submissions, period selection, or score bounds. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Create a board') and immediately scopes it (100,000 submissions, 365 days) while naming the return payload (keys and a JS snippet). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like leaderboard_topup because it is the board-provisioning operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies the use case ('a leaderboard backend for a game in one paid call, no signup') but never explicitly states when to use this vs. alternatives such as leaderboard_topup, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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

All Rengi Forge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?