Footdigest: a competition's defining moments, the results that moved teams across the qualification line, most consequential first, with the group table crossings. Give the competition slug; optional limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max moments to return (default 5, max 20). | |
| competition | Yes | Competition slug, e.g. world-cup-2026. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions ordering ('most consequential first') and inclusion of 'group table crossings', but fails to state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 concise, comprising a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and key parameters. However, the opening 'Footdigest: ' adds unnecessary branding, and the sentence structure is somewhat awkward. Still, it is efficient with no redundant sentences.
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 has 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the output looks like or what 'defining moments' entail. It does not describe the return format, pagination, or error behavior, leaving the agent with significant unknowns about the tool's behavior.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters adequately described in the schema (limit: default 5, max 20; competition: slug example). The description merely restates these ('Give the competition slug; optional limit') without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
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 it returns a competition's defining moments that moved teams across qualification lines, ordered by consequence. It identifies the resource (defining moments) and action (get). While the phrasing 'Footdigest: ...' is somewhat awkward, it conveys the unique purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like get_standings or get_qualification_scenarios.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_standings or get_qualification_scenarios. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to choose between siblings. This lack of usage context limits the agent's ability to select the tool appropriately.
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.
