horizon_get_user_rankRetrieve a user's rank on a horizOn leaderboard by passing userId. Include leaderboardKey to select a named board, or omit it to use the default.
Gets the rank of a specific user on a horizOn leaderboard. Pass leaderboardKey to target a specific board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | User ID (UUID) | |
| leaderboardKey | No | Leaderboard key — selects a named board on the API key. Omit to use the default board. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about auth requirements, whether the user must already be ranked, what happens if the user is absent from the board, or the shape of the returned rank (numeric vs object). For a query tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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 short sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary action before the optional targeting hint. Every sentence 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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action but leaves return values, error/absence behavior, and auth expectations unspecified. It is minimally adequate for a simple read query but does not fill the gaps left by missing annotations and output schema.
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%, and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the leaderboardKey default behavior. The description's mention of leaderboardKey adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 (Gets) and resource (rank of a specific user on a leaderboard), which is clearly narrower than the sibling 'horizon_get_leaderboard_top' and 'horizon_get_leaderboard_around'. However, it does not explicitly call out how it differs from the around-based sibling that likely also surfaces the user's position.
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 description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like horizon_get_leaderboard_around or horizon_get_leaderboard_top. The only routing hint, 'Pass leaderboardKey to target a specific board', is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.