Answer the current item (or skip, stop, show); returns the next item or the result. auth for POST /api/games//answer with body {"session":…,"answer":…}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth | Yes | NIP-98 auth: a signed kind 27235 event (object) or its base64, for POST <base> + the path, payload = sha256 of the body | |
| body | No | optional: the exact JSON body you signed | |
| game | Yes | ||
| show | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| stop | No | ||
| answer | No | ||
| format | No | text (default) or json | |
| session | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a result/next item is returned and that NIP-98 auth plus a signed body hash are required for the POST, but it does not explain the effects of skip/stop/show flags or any state change. Partial behavioral coverage for a tool with zero structured hints.
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?
Two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense with endpoint and auth detail but still earns its place by surfacing an otherwise invisible requirement.
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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 33% schema coverage, the description covers the action, return value, and auth path but omits flag semantics and format behavior. Adequate but clearly short of what this complexity demands.
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 only 33%, so the schema documents auth/body/format but leaves game, session, show, skip, stop, and answer undocumented. The description partially compensates by naming skip/stop/show and referencing session/answer via the body shape, but it adds no format or semantics for the unsigned parameters.
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 gives a specific verb (Answer) plus the resource (the current item) and enumerates the alternate actions skip, stop, and show, which distinguishes it from game_start and game_board. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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?
"Answer the current item (or skip, stop, show)" implies the in-game-flow context but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance versus game_start or game_board, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The parenthetical alternatives are helpful but the usage boundary is left to inference.
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.