Fetch Metaculus tournament question rows by slug, with an optional row limit. Use it to list questions or detect invalid slugs via a 404.
Metaculus tournament questions. Returns Metaculus question rows for one public tournament, filtered by its slug. A slug that does not exist returns 404.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Metaculus tournament slug | |
| limit | No | Rows to return, default 10, max 25 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only public tournaments are covered and that a nonexistent slug yields a 404, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the error behavior; no filler. The opening 'Metaculus tournament questions.' slightly restates the tool name, keeping it just short of maximally tight.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (question rows for one tournament), the scoping key, and the failure mode. Missing details about the limit cap's effect on results and any ordering are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'slug' and 'limit'. The description reinforces the slug as a tournament slug but adds no format, example, or constraint detail beyond the schema, and never mentions the limit parameter. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Returns Metaculus question rows for one public tournament, filtered by its slug.' This implicitly separates it from the broader metaculus_questions / metaculus_project_questions siblings via the 'tournament' scope, but it never names an alternative, so the distinction is left to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied by the 'one public tournament' scope; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. metaculus_category_questions or metaculus_project_questions). The 404 note hints at input validity but not at tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.