List public rooms waiting for players, with codes, and wars in progress. Use before joining a war by code; to start your own, call join_war with room "new".
Lists public rooms waiting for players (with their codes) and wars in progress. Read-only, no token needed. Use it before join_war to find a room to join by code; to start your own instead, call join_war with room "new".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so safety is covered; the description adds the auth requirement ('no token needed'), which is real context the annotations lack. It does not disclose rate limits or pagination, but for a zero-param listing tool that is a minor gap.
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; the purpose and the returned field (codes) are front-loaded, and the routing guidance follows. Every clause 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?
With no output schema the description must carry the return contract, and it does ('with their codes', 'wars in progress'). It stops short of describing ordering or emptiness behavior, but an agent has enough to call and consume it correctly.
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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to mis-specify, and the description correctly hints at the shape of returned data (room codes) without inventing params.
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 ('Lists') and two concrete resources ('public rooms waiting for players' and 'wars in progress'), plus explicitly notes the returned codes. An agent can distinguish this from join_war or ladder without opening any schema.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use ('before join_war to find a room to join by code') and names the alternative path for a different intent ('to start your own instead, call join_war with room "new"'). No inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.