Create a projector display screen for a published tournament
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Display name (default: Main screen) | |
| token | No | URL token (default: auto-generated) | |
| 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",
- "session_token"
-]New value: +[
+ "tournament_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false confirms creation). It adds the useful prerequisite that the tournament must be published, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. But it does not disclose mutation side effects, permission requirements, or token/name handling beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, resource, and key condition efficiently.
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 a simple 3-parameter create operation with full schema coverage and informative annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite. It omits any mention of what is returned or how the created display is used, which is a minor but real gap for a creation tool with no output schema.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including defaults for name and token. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referencing the published tournament, matching the baseline when the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a projector display screen.' It also scopes the operation to a published tournament, which distinguishes it from generic create tools. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools, so it lands just below the top score.
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 phrase 'for a published tournament' implies a prerequisite condition, giving some usage context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving guidance at an implicit level.
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.