Cricinfo team match schedule. The response includes the team's identity and a list of match summaries with scores, status, and canonical scorecard URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response contains team identity plus match summaries with scores, status, and scorecard URLs, which is useful framing, but an output schema already exists so return-value detail is not required.
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?
Two short sentences, no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Slightly thin rather than over-verbose.
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 output schema covers the return shape, but the required 'url' input is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a critical gap for an agent that must decide what value to pass.
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 single required parameter 'url' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what URL is expected (team page? schedule page?). With one undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 resource — a Cricinfo team's match schedule — with a clear noun phrase an agent can match to intent. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like cricinfo_team, cricinfo_venue_matches, or cricinfo_scores, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as cricinfo_team or cricinfo_live_matches. The description leaves the agent to guess the correct scenario for calling it.
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.
