Returns the themed collections of games published on this website, each with its page address. Collections: 1
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": "top_games"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that each collection carries a page address, but it omits pagination, ordering, and what 'Collections: 1' actually means, which reads like an unexplained count or truncation.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the dangling 'Collections: 1' sentence is confusing rather than informative and should either be explained or removed. Brevity here is partly under-specification, not discipline.
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 with no output schema, the description does state the basic return shape (themed collections with page addresses). It stops short of explaining what a collection contains, how many to expect, or how this relates to the other game-listing tools, leaving real gaps for a discovery endpoint.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing about inputs the description needs to clarify. It does not waste space restating an empty schema.
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 verb and resource ('Returns the themed collections of games') plus the return shape ('each with its page address'), which is more than a tautology. But the trailing fragment 'Collections: 1' is cryptic and the description never distinguishes this from siblings games_results or online_games, so an agent cannot tell which listing tool to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools that also return games. The agent must guess whether this is a discovery/browse tool or an alternative to games_results.
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.