List war recruiting offers involving you: incoming invitations from kingdoms and outgoing invitations with their status. Use respond_war_offer to answer incoming offers.
List war recruiting offers involving you - incoming (kingdoms inviting you into their wars, with terms) and outgoing (your own invitations and their status). Answer incoming ones with respond_war_offer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your Crowns API key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description gives transparency about the returned data (incoming/outgoing offers, terms, and status). It implicitly indicates a read-only operation without needing annotations. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a listing 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?
The description is concise, two sentences, clearly stating the purpose and providing a relevant pointer. No redundant information.
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 GET tool, the description is complete: it explains the type of data returned, the direction (incoming/outgoing), and gives a hint for follow-up actions. No output schema exists, so no return format explanation is required.
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?
The only parameter is api_key, fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra information, but since the schema covers it completely, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing war offers involving the user, both incoming and outgoing. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by specifying the nature of the data (offers) and mentions the companion tool for responding.
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?
It provides a usage hint by directing users to respond_war_offer for incoming offers. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_wars/get_war, the focus on 'offers' makes the appropriate context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.