Retrieve tier configurations from Gameball, with optional language parameter for localized responses.
Get tier
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": "getTiersConfigurations"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | If the lang header is provided |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, 'Get tier' reveals nothing about side effects, return values, permissions, or operational characteristics. This is almost no transparency, not even implying a read-only operation clearly.
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 extremely brief (two words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Every word is present, but the phrase fails to communicate essential information, making it insufficient for proper tool selection or invocation.
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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), one might expect a simple description to suffice, but 'Get tier' lacks any context about what a tier configuration is, how 'lang' affects results, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for an agent to correctly use the tool, especially with sibling configuration tools present.
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 schema description coverage is 100% (one parameter 'lang'), providing some baseline meaning. However, the description 'Get tier' adds no additional parameter semantics. The schema's description of 'lang' is ambiguous ('If the lang header is provided'), but per the rubric, high coverage yields a baseline of 3, which is maintained here since the tool description neither helps nor harms.
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 'Get tier' is essentially a shortened restatement of the tool name 'getTiersConfigurations', offering no additional specification of what configurations or tiers are involved. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like getCampaignsConfigurations or getReferralsConfigurations, making it tautological and vague.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenarios it is appropriate for, or how it relates to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.