Add a team/participant to a tournament
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Team name | |
| seed | Yes | Seed (position) | |
| tournament_id | Yes | Tournament ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Record ID | |
| name | Yes | Name | |
| seed | Yes | Seed | |
| status | Yes | Status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Record ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "seed": {
+ "description": "Seed",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Status",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "seed",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / session_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The session_token returned by create_tournament",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "tournament_id",
- "name",
- "seed",
- "session_token"
-]New value: +[
+ "tournament_id",
+ "name",
+ "seed"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations specify readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, confirming a non-idempotent write. The description adds context that the entity being added is a team/participant to a tournament, which is useful behavioral framing. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether seeds are unique or whether the tournament must be in a certain state. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 the action and target, no waste.
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 mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is minimal. It conveys the core action but omits prerequisites (e.g., tournament must exist) and any behavioral traits beyond safety hints. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.
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 ('Add') and resource ('team/participant to a tournament'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_court or create_tournament.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_court, create_tournament), nor any prerequisites or constraints.
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.