TheDiscList Public MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It outlines the computation performed (deltas, stability spread) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or return format, though that is less critical for a comparison tool.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality and the key constraint (2 to 4 discs).

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it computes. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect in terms of results (deltas and stability spread).

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?

The schema already describes the disc_ids parameter (array, 2-4 items). The description adds meaningful context by indicating that the primary baseline disc is the first in the array, which is not in the schema. This enhances understanding without redundancy.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing 2 to 4 discs and computing flight rating deltas and stability spread. This is distinct from the sibling tools (get_disc, search_discs, find_similar_discs), making its role 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?

The description implies usage for comparison scenarios but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. It does not specify when to prefer this over find_similar_discs or search_discs, leaving some inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, or data source limitations. The name suggests read-only, but that is not stated.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., list of discs, ordering, or any additional metadata). Since there is no output schema to fill this gap, the description should have provided some indication of the return value.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, covering their meaning and default values. However, the description itself does not add additional context beyond the schema, leaving potential ambiguity about how parameters like target_brand or exclude_same_brand interact.

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 clearly states the tool's function: finding alternative discs similar to a target based on category, speed, and flight profile. It distinguishes this from sibling tools (e.g., search_discs, compare_discs) by focusing on similarity matching.

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 intended use case is implied by the description, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks statements like 'use this when you need replacements for a disc' or comparisons with sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieve') with no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is important and is adequately covered. It does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., not found), but that is not critical for behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that packs all essential information without extraneous words. It is well-structured and immediately 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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It lists the type of information returned, which helps set expectations. It does not describe the response format, but that is not essential given the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The only parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Stable disc ID or slug' and the description repeats the same. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it provides no extra value for parameter understanding. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'disc', and the method of identification (numeric ID or string slug). It also enumerates the specific details returned (flight ratings, stability score, flight class, available plastics), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or compare.

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 description implies usage when you already have a disc ID or slug, but it does not explicitly contrast with search or compare tools. It could state 'Use this when you have a known disc identifier; use search_discs to find discs by criteria.' However, the intended use case is fairly evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only search with no side effects, which is sufficient, though it could explicitly state that no modifications occur.

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, concise sentence that captures the full scope of the tool without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description mentions return limits (up to 50) and result characteristics (stable IDs, canonical URLs), which provides useful context. It lacks an output schema, but that is not required for a search tool.

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?

All 10 parameters are described with meaningful details (e.g., ranges, examples for flight_class). The descriptions add clarity beyond the parameter names, fully covering the schema.

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 clearly states it searches and filters disc golf discs by multiple criteria, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_discs, find_similar_discs, and get_disc.

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?

While not explicitly stating when to use this over siblings, the action of searching/filtering is obvious from the description and complements the other tools' specific purposes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.