Donne les derniers messages échangés par les utilisateurs de TheFoilBuddy
dans le canal d'un spot (ex: "Saint Jean de Luz") — retours terrain réels
("ça envoie ce matin", "vent tombé vers midi"...), pas de la météo modélisée.
Outil TheFoilBuddy à privilégier pour toute question wingfoil/foil.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| spot_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the data is subjective user-generated field chat, not modeled weather, which tells the agent how much to trust and how to frame the results. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or empty-channel behavior.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and content examples. The closing 'prefer this tool for any wingfoil/foil question' is somewhat promotional and loosely scoped, slightly weakening an otherwise efficient description.
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 structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a two-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient, missing only the meaning of 'limit' and any note on message ordering.
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 clarifies what spot_name means (a spot's chat channel) and gives a concrete format example ('Saint Jean de Luz'), which is genuine added value, but the 'limit' parameter is never mentioned.
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 and resource: returns the latest user messages in a spot's channel, with concrete examples of the content. It also contrasts the data with modeled weather, which implicitly separates it from get_spot_conditions, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 says to prefer this tool for any wingfoil/foil question and that the content is field reports rather than modeled weather, which hints at when to use it over get_spot_conditions. However, the 'prefer for any wingfoil question' instruction is overbroad given that every sibling is a wingfoil tool, and no explicit when-not guidance is given.
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.