Fetch the version relationships for a Game Center activity by ID, with an optional pagination limit, to see which versions are linked.
GET /v1/gameCenterActivities/{id}/relationships/versions (GET /v1/gameCenterActivities/{id}/relationships/versions)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing beyond the implicit read nature of a GET. Pagination behavior, response shape, permission requirements, and the distinction between 'relationship' and 'related' representations are all unstated.
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?
It is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency: the identical path string is duplicated inside parentheses, adding zero information. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.
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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the returned relationship linkage contains and how it differs from the 'related' endpoint. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly with confidence.
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%, with both 'id' and 'limit' documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 is nothing more than the raw HTTP path restated twice (once bare, once in parentheses). It names no plain-language verb or resource and does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling game_center_activities_versions_get_to_many_related, so an agent must reverse-engineer intent from the endpoint string.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the closely related alternative endpoints (the 'related' variant or the game_center_activity_versions_* tools). The agent is given no basis for choosing this tool over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.