Recent Connect 4 matches with their results, and the replay URL for each. Every move is published, so any result can be re-derived by replaying the list through the rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | 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 mentions that every move is published and results can be re-derived, which is useful transparency about data completeness. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only (likely, but not stated) or describe any side effects, pagination behavior, or response format details. The extra note about derivability is above average but not comprehensive.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a relevant detail. No wasted words or repetition. The structure is ideal for quick scanning by an agent.
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?
The description gives the essential output: matches with results and replay URLs. However, it omits details about the 'limit' parameter behavior (e.g., default value, max allowed), ordering (are matches newest first?), and any potential error conditions. Since there is no output schema, the agent might need additional clarity on the exact fields returned. The note about re-derivation partially compensates, but overall coverage is basic.
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 0% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The agent must rely on the parameter name alone, which is insufficient for knowing defaults, maximums, required status, or whether it affects ordering. The description adds zero value in explaining parameter usage, and with no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
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 states a specific verb (list/recent) and resource (Connect 4 matches) with their results and replay URLs. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on match history as opposed to board states, play actions, or game rules. The purpose is unambiguous and neither tautological nor misleading.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arena_play, arena_board, or arena_feed. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The only implicit hint is that it deals with recent matches, but the agent must infer when to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
