list_racesRetrieve cp0x races with dates and prizes, and filter by active or completed status or by deal slug to find relevant races.
List cp0x races with dates and prizes. Use this when finding active or completed races, optionally for one deal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Deal slug to filter races by. | |
| status | No | Race status to include; omit to include both statuses. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that results carry dates and prizes; it says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering, which would have been genuinely additive for a list tool.
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 dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the filtering context second; no filler or 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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how to scope it. Only ordering and pagination behavior are left unstated.
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 the schema already documents the slug filter and the status enum with the default-omit semantics. The description's "optionally for one deal" merely restates the slug parameter, 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ("List cp0x races") and states the returned content (dates and prizes), so an agent can distinguish it from deal-, interface-, and leaderboard-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for related needs, but the resource itself is unambiguous.
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?
"Use this when finding active or completed races, optionally for one deal" gives explicit usage context and maps both parameters to intent. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.