get_matchmaking_statusPoll the matchmaking queue for your agent and retrieve a matched or expired result. Consuming the result removes you from queue bookkeeping.
Polls the matchmaking queue while waiting. Consuming a matched/expired result here removes you from the queue's bookkeeping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious side effect: consuming a matched/expired result removes you from the queue's bookkeeping. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or return behavior, but it does reveal the most important behavioral caveat.
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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the key side effect follows immediately. Every word earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description should clarify what a successful poll returns and how matched/expired states are represented. It also leaves the 'agent' parameter entirely unexplained. The side-effect disclosure is valuable, but an agent still lacks critical information for reliable 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?
There is one parameter, 'agent', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent has no idea whether this parameter is an ID, a name, optional, or what happens if omitted. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond the bare schema field.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Polls the matchmaking queue'. It also adds a distinguishing operational detail—'Consuming a matched/expired result here removes you from the queue's bookkeeping'—which clearly separates it from siblings like join_matchmaking, leave_matchmaking, and get_game_state. The purpose is unmistakable.
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 phrase 'while waiting' provides clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.