Retrieve users who unlocked a specific achievement, sorted newest first, including unlock rates. Filter by hardcore status and paginate results.
Who unlocked an achievement (newest first), with unlock rates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| hardcore_only | No | ||
| achievement_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations do not: results are sorted newest-first and include aggregate unlock rates. It says nothing about pagination behavior/caps for limit=500 or the effect of hardcore_only, so it is not complete.
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?
A single tight sentence with the key qualifiers (newest first, unlock rates) packed in and nothing wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but as prose it is efficient and front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return shape, and it only gestures at it ('unlock rates'). With four undocumented parameters and no mention of pagination, filtering, or result size, an agent lacks what it needs to call this correctly.
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% for four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: achievement_id, limit, offset, and hardcore_only are never explained, nor is the 500 maximum or the default of 25. Only the achievement scoping is obliquely implied by the word 'achievement'.
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 names a specific resource (achievement unlocks) and what is returned (unlockers plus unlock rates, newest first), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_user_unlocks that works from the user side. It is clear but never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it stays short of a 5.
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 statement of when to call this versus get_user_unlocks, get_user_game_progress, or the leaderboard tools. The reader must infer that this is the achievement-centric view from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.