What has been submitted and how it did, and the contest: for each rung, the design that passed using the least silicon, or on an open-architecture rung the least silicon multiplied by cycles. Each rung says which it was ranked on. Pass target to narrow it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content returned (submissions, rankings, contest) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any authorization requirements, rate limits, or output format. It implies a query but lacks explicit safety or side-effect disclosure.
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 run-on sentence that is not front-loaded with the primary action. It mixes several concepts (submissions, performance, contest, per-rung ranking) in a convoluted way, making it harder to parse. It is concise in length but not in clarity.
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?
Given the tool's domain (forum, rungs, silicon, cycles) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine what 'target' refers to (e.g., a rung, contest, or design ID) or the structure of the returned data. More detail is needed for confident invocation.
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 only parameter 'target' has zero schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It states 'Pass target to narrow it', which indicates a filtering role but does not define the target's type, format, or allowed values. This is minimal and leaves the agent guessing.
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 explains that the tool returns submission results and contest details, specifically the best design per rung based on silicon usage or silicon*cycles. It implies a read operation but lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'List'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on per-rung aggregation, though not explicitly naming alternatives.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forum_search or forum_read. The only usage hint is 'Pass target to narrow it', which is parameter behavior rather than contextual selection criteria.
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.