Search speedrun.com users by partial username to obtain their IDs, countries, and signup dates. Resolve player identities for leaderboards and records.
Search for speedrun.com users by name. Returns ids, countries and signup dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Username (or partial), at least 3 characters. | |
| limit | No | Max users to return. | |
| offset | No | Start offset; use next_offset to continue. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds return field details (ids, countries, signup dates) beyond annotations. It does not mention pagination behavior, but that is covered in the schema. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, zero fluff. Perfectly sized for a simple search tool.
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?
Given no output schema, the description mentions return fields. Pagination is documented in the schema, and annotations cover open-world and read-only aspects. It could explicitly state it returns a list, but this is implied for a search tool. Completeness is adequate for the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying the 'name' parameter via 'by name'. No compensation needed.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'speedrun.com users', distinguishing it from sibling search_games and search_series by specifying the entity type. Also mentions return fields (ids, countries, signup dates), which further clarifies its purpose.
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?
No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. The description implies it is for user searches, but does not mention when not to use it or contrast with search_games or search_series. The agent must infer from the resource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.