List your team's live CTF dynamic instances with challenge, category, access host, and remaining seconds. Returns an error if the CTF lacks the ctfd-whale plugin.
[ctfd-whale] List your team's LIVE dynamic instances: challenge, category, access host, remaining seconds. Returns {error} if the CTF has no ctfd-whale plugin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the error behavior ('Returns {error} if the CTF has no ctfd-whale plugin') and the team-scoped, live-only nature of the listing, but says nothing about permissions, auth requirements, or how the live/remaining-seconds state is computed.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope, followed by the failure condition. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.
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 single zero-arg listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope, the fields returned, and the plugin-absent error case. Auth/permission prerequisites are the only notable omission, which is minor at this complexity.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies given an empty argument object.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List your team's LIVE dynamic instances') and enumerates what it returns (challenge, category, access host, remaining seconds). It is clearly distinguishable from the whale_start/whale_stop siblings, which create and destroy rather than list.
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 'LIVE dynamic instances' framing gives clear context for when this tool applies, and the plugin-prefix tag ties it to the ctfd-whale workflow. It stops short of explicitly naming whale_start/whale_stop as the alternatives for creating or tearing down instances, so no explicit exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.