List speedruns filtered by game, category, user, or status, and sort or limit results to find relevant run records.
List speedruns with optional filters for game, category, user, or status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | ||
| game | No | Game ID | |
| user | No | User ID | |
| status | No | new, verified, or rejected | |
| orderby | No | date, submitted, status, game, category, level, platform, region, emulated, or weblink | |
| category | No | ||
| direction | No | asc or desc |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only that filters are optional; it does not mention pagination, default ordering, or result limits, so it provides some but not substantial extra behavioral context.
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 efficient sentence with the core operation front-loaded. It contains no redundant or filler language.
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 list tool, annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers most parameters. However, the description does not explain default limiting, ordering behavior, or what the result set looks like, and the 'max' parameter is undocumented in both description and schema, leaving a meaningful gap.
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 71%, and the schema itself documents most parameters including enums for status, orderby, and direction. The description names game, category, user, and status filters, but omits max, orderby, and direction, so it adds modest value without fully compensating for the remaining schema gaps.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List speedruns' with optional filtering fields. It is easily distinguishable from sibling retrieval tools like speedrun_get_game or speedrun_get_user, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives such as search-oriented siblings.
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 phrase 'with optional filters' implies that the tool is used to browse or narrow speedrun records, but it does not explicitly say when to use this list operation versus related retrieval tools. No exclusions or alternative-tool guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.