Retrieve the versions linked to a Game Center challenge by ID, with optional pagination, to inspect or manage its version relationships.
GET /v1/gameCenterChallenges/{id}/relationships/versions (GET /v1/gameCenterChallenges/{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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the HTTP method in the path. It says nothing about pagination behavior, whether the id refers to a challenge or a version, what the relationship returns, or permission requirements.
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 the brevity comes from duplicating the same endpoint string twice in parentheses rather than from efficient communication. There is no front-loaded purpose statement to orient the agent.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a two-parameter tool, the description must explain what the call returns and how it differs from siblings. Instead it provides only the URL, leaving the agent unable to distinguish it from other version-relationship tools.
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% (both 'id' and 'limit' are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already states.
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 just the raw endpoint path duplicated in parentheses, restating the tool name rather than explaining intent. An agent can infer from the path that it fetches the 'versions' relationship of a game center challenge, but there is no verb-level description of what that yields and no differentiation from the sibling game_center_challenges_versions_get_to_many_related.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical sibling game_center_challenges_versions_get_to_many_related. The agent is left to guess which of the two version-listing tools to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.