search_coachesSearch coaches by name, role, or team.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "search_coaches"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| role | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| team_id | No | ||
| team_name | No |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no matching semantics (exact vs partial/substring), no result ordering, and no explanation of how limit interacts with the default of 25.
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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.
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 values need not be described, but with five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations covering matching behavior, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call it confidently. It should at minimum explain filter combination and team_id/team_name semantics.
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 carries the full burden, yet it only names three of the five parameters and never distinguishes team_id from team_name or explains that they are alternative ways to scope by team. The limit parameter is undocumented in both places.
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 ("Search coaches") plus the three filter dimensions, which distinguishes it by resource from the player/team siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives such as search_players, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the other search tools, no statement that all parameters are optional and can be combined, and no mention of what happens with an empty query. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.
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.