Tools to manage french shooter and competitions
Scored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity for the agent to distinguish between tools.
Single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (list_organisation_competitions) with no inconsistency.
One tool is appropriate for a simple listing service, though slightly on the lower end of typical server sizes.
The server lacks any operations beyond listing all competitions, with no ability to filter, retrieve details of a single competition, or perform updates/deletions, which are significant gaps for a data-oriented server.
Returns the list of all public organisation competitions with their details (title, date, address, location, url).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates a read-like operation (returning data) but does not mention any side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or other behavioral expectations beyond 'returns'.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Returns the list...') and includes key detail (fields). Every word is informative and there is no wasted text.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (title, date, address, location, url). It is complete and sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema has 100% coverage, and the description adds no further parameter details (none needed).
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of all public organisation competitions'), clearly stating what the tool does. Since there are no sibling tools, no differentiation is needed, and the purpose is unambiguous.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no explicit context or exclusions are given. For a simple parameterless tool, this is a minor gap but still lacks any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
list_organisation_competitionsManage your endurance training data and race preparation
French address quality, geocoding, routing, company lookup & catchment stats (BAN, INSEE, OSM).
Search 1.26M+ active French associations (official RNA registry, 10 tools, premium & RUP filters)
Read-only PDGA disc golf data — players, events, courses and season statistics.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
