Add a court, pitch or table. Courts are what the schedule puts matches on and what the projector groups them by, so a tournament with none can be played but not organised: update_fixture's court argument has nothing to point at.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Court name, e.g. 'Court 1' | |
| position | No | Order on the screen, 0-based (default: after the last one) | |
| tournament_id | Yes | Tournament ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / session_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The session_token returned by create_tournament",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "tournament_id",
- "name",
- "session_token"
-]New value: +[
+ "tournament_id",
+ "name"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that courts are needed for organization but doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, or idempotency behavior beyond what annotations state.
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 with no waste, front-loading the purpose and then the domain rationale. Efficient and clear.
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?
For a simple create tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides adequate context about why courts matter. Missing only minor details like whether it returns an ID or what constraints exist, but complete enough for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'update_fixture's court argument' but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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+resource ('Add a court, pitch or table') and clarifies with domain context that this is what the schedule and projector organize matches by. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_entry or create_display.
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?
Explains the consequence of not adding courts and implies usage through the dependency on update_fixture. Doesn't name explicit alternatives (e.g., list_courts) but provides clear context for when it's needed.
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.