Retrieve stored Gamecenter availability for a specified sport and Eastern date, returning paginated packets for individual retrieval; no analysis is generated.
List bounded stored Gamecenter availability for an explicit Eastern date and discovered sport. Retrieve individual packets as needed; this does not generate analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| sport | Yes | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is additive. It does disclose that results are precomputed/stored and bounded rather than freshly analyzed, and that the date is Eastern, which is useful context. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume despite cursor/page_size parameters existing.
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 tight sentences with no filler and the core constraint front-loaded. The only friction is the unexplained compound modifier 'bounded stored' and the slightly buried negative constraint.
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?
With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should carry more of the burden. It omits pagination semantics, valid sport values, and what a returned 'availability' record looks like, leaving an agent able to call it only with guessed paging behavior.
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 0% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for two of them (date must be an explicit Eastern date; sport must be a 'discovered' sport), but cursor and page_size are wholly undocumented in both schema and description, and no format/examples are given for sport values.
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 concrete verb (List) and resource (Gamecenter availability), and scopes it to a specific date and sport, which separates it from siblings like query_stats or run_filter. However, the modifier 'bounded stored' is jargon that is not explained and the resource name is not fully distinguished from get_gamecenter_packet.
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?
It implies a usage path by saying 'Retrieve individual packets as needed' and excludes one behavior ('this does not generate analysis'), which nudges the agent toward get_gamecenter_packet and away from analysis tools. But no sibling is named explicitly and no condition for choosing between listing vs. querying is given, so guidance stays implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.