gameresFetch hot trending game news and articles from 游民星空 (Gamersky) to monitor popular gaming content.
获取游民星空热榜
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": "gameres"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| noCache | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral details such as caching behavior (though hinted by the 'noCache' parameter), rate limits, or what the response contains. The tool's behavior is not disclosed beyond its basic function.
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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence. It is not verbose, but it is also not structured or detailed. It earns a middle score for being brief without being wasteful.
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 lack of output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full capabilities. It provides only the most basic function, omitting return format, parameter details, and usage context.
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 has two parameters (limit, noCache) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain their purpose or expected values, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.
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 '获取游民星空热榜' which clearly identifies the tool as retrieving the Gamersky hotlist. It specifies the platform (游民星空) and action (获取), but does not contrast with sibling tools like 'weibo' or 'zhihu' beyond the platform name.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or conditions. The description is a single sentence without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.