get_endorsementsRetrieve a list of mods you've endorsed or abstained from for a specific game. Enter the game's domain name (e.g., 'skyrimspecialedition') to get your endorsement history.
Mods you endorsed or abstained from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | No | Game domain name as in site URLs, e.g. "skyrimspecialedition", "fallout4", "stardewvalley" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds a behavioral detail by specifying that the result includes both endorsed and abstained mods, which is beyond the tool name. However, it does not disclose what fields are returned, pagination, or whether both statuses are always included.
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 a single, short phrase with no filler words. It is efficiently written and front-loaded with the key information. It could be slightly more explicit about the action, but there is no redundancy.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential meaning but omits usage context (e.g., whether it requires the current user's session, if it returns only mods the user has endorsed, and what the response shape is). Given the low complexity and annotations covering safety, it's minimally sufficient but not rich.
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 only parameter, 'game', is fully described in the schema with examples (skyrimspecialedition, fallout4, stardewvalley). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new meaning about the parameter. It does not elaborate on how the game parameter filters the endorsement list.
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 clearly states the resource (mods) and the specific filter (endorsed or abstained from), distinguishing it from general mod listing tools like list_mods. It's more specific than the name alone, though it doesn't explicitly say 'list' or 'get', relying on the title for that verb.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tracked_mods or endorse_mod. No mention of prerequisites, authentication requirements, or typical use cases. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.