list_contestsRetrieve contest listings from Freelancehunt with pagination and scope filtering (all contests or only yours). Use this tool to browse available competitions or track your own entries.
Contest listings. Documented in the API but currently answers 404 for regular tokens — kept for completeness and in case access is restored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| scope | No | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool currently returns 404 for regular tokens and may be restored later. No contradiction with annotations.
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 extremely concise, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core meaning ('Contest listings') and then adds a single, relevant caveat about availability. Every word 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?
The description covers the critical availability caveat but omits any mention of return format or pagination behavior. Since there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, an agent has limited information about what to expect from a successful call. However, the tool's simplicity and read-only annotation keep the gap moderate.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does not explain 'page' or 'scope' at all, nor their allowed values. The parameter names and enum are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic guidance.
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 phrase 'Contest listings' combined with the tool name 'list_contests' clearly indicates the operation: listing contest resources. It distinguishes a list operation from sibling detail tools like get_contest, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 provides meaningful usage context by warning that the endpoint currently answers 404 for regular tokens and is kept only for completeness. This implies the tool should not be relied upon in normal flows, but it does not explicitly state when to use an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.