get_leaderboardRetrieve a Circle community leaderboard for all time or a 7/30-day period, using a named account for credentials.
Show Leaderboard. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Leaderboard period, default is all time | |
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so "Reads community data" adds nothing beyond the structured fields. No mention of scope of data returned, whether results are public vs. credentialed, pagination, or result size.
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?
At two short sentences it is certainly concise and front-loaded, but the second sentence ("Reads community data") is pure filler that duplicates the readOnly annotation and earns no place. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
With two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations covering what the leaderboard actually contains, the description should explain what is being ranked and what the periods mean. It explains neither, leaving the agent unable to judge relevance or interpret results.
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 100% – the schema explains the period enum's default (all time) and clarifies that account selects credentials rather than a community ID. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas applies.
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?
"Show Leaderboard" simply restates the tool name and title, and "Reads community data" is a generic add-on that could describe almost any tool in this server. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_member or list_members, and the resource being ranked is never named (members? posts? courses?).
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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists. An agent cannot infer from this text whether the leaderboard covers engagement, spending, or course progress, or in which context it should be requested.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.