Retrieve or refresh a Kaggle competition by URL or slug to return its brief and key details like rules, evaluation, data, leaderboard, discussions, and notebooks.
Fetch (or refresh) a competition from Kaggle by URL or slug, then return its brief.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No | ||
| competition | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say what 'refresh' actually does (re-fetch, overwrite cached data, invalidate local state), whether network/Kaggle auth is required, or whether the operation has side effects. Only the return intent ('return its brief') is disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the input forms, and the result, with no filler. Every clause contributes 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?
An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required. But for a tool with a cache-refresh behavior and zero annotation coverage, the description leaves the key behavioral question (what refresh does and any side effects) unanswered, and does not clarify its relationship to get_brief.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for 'competition' by specifying URL or slug acceptance, which the bare string-typed schema does not convey. The 'refresh' boolean is only obliquely explained by the parenthetical in the opening phrase, leaving its exact effect undefined.
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 (fetch/refresh) and resource (a Kaggle competition), plus the accepted input format (URL or slug) and the outcome (returns its brief). It implicitly separates itself from list_competitions by operating on one competition, but it never explains how it differs from the sibling get_brief, which it appears to overlap with.
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 parenthetical 'or refresh' hints that the tool is used both for first retrieval and for re-fetching, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the get_brief sibling, which reads as the obvious alternative for a tool that 'returns its brief.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.