get_exportFull structured export of the tournament document (players, draws, results) — for the organiser's own records or data portability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tournament_key | Yes | The tournament's organiser key (starts with tk_) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tournament | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the payload contents (players, draws, results) and that it is 'full' and 'structured', which are useful behavioral details beyond the 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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and content, followed by a brief usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter), an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, content, and usage context. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and sibling distinctions are clear.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter (tournament_key). The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already carries the load.
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 clearly states 'Full structured export of the tournament document (players, draws, results)' with a specific verb (export), resource (tournament document), and content scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_results (specific data) and get_pdf (PDF format), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 description provides clear context ('for the organiser's own records or data portability') that implies when to use it, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It is better than no guidance but stops short of explicit exclusions like 'use get_results for a single section'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools serve overlapping purposes: get_pdf and get_pdf_link both return PDF artifacts, get_schedule and list_matches both provide match scheduling info, and get_results vs. get_standings can be confused for finished tournaments. However, the descriptions clarify the distinctions (embedded vs. link, upcoming vs. all matches, final vs. current standings), and roster-management tools are clearly separated by action.
All 30 tools consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_tournament, record_results, withdraw_player). The only slight variation is the mix of get_* and list_* for read operations, but that's a common and predictable convention. There are no camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 30 tools, the server exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25. While the domain is complex, this count is heavy and may overwhelm agents, especially since several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_pdf/get_pdf_link, get_schedule/list_matches). A more streamlined set around 20 tools would be more appropriate.
The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage for tournament management: create/delete/end tournaments, manage players (add, remove, replace, withdraw, promote, update), generate draws, record results, handle doubles pairs, reschedule, retrieve standings/schedule/results, export/PDF, audit log, undo changes, and feedback. No major gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.