find_clubsClub pages that clubs manage themselves: booking link and platform, courts, today's free courts when the club shares its calendar, founding status. Filter by city (phuket, singapore) or ask for one club by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | phuket or singapore | |
| name | No | One club by name; the slug is derived |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the data source ('club pages that clubs manage themselves') and conditional availability ('today's free courts when the club shares its calendar'), which goes beyond the schema.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the key content and then states the two filter options. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.
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 read-only lookup with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough content for correct invocation. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the behavior when neither filter is provided, but the filter language implies both are optional.
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 both parameters. The description restates that city and name are the two filter modes but adds no new detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('find') and resource ('clubs'), then details what club pages contain (booking link and platform, courts, today's free courts, founding status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_matches, which target matches rather than clubs.
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 gives clear usage context: filter by city (phuket, singapore) or query a single club by name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource or action: about/API key, match creation, club searching, match searching, schedule generation, group retrieval, match retrieval, and joining. Even similar tools like find_matches and get_match are separated by clear inputs and purposes.
Nearly all tools follow the verb_noun pattern: create_match, find_clubs, find_matches, generate_schedule, get_group, get_match, join_match, create_api_key. The only deviation is about_kicksmash, which uses a preposition-style prefix instead of a verb.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a padel-focused assistant. Each tool serves a distinct user need without redundancy or bloat.
The core workflows—discovering clubs/matches, creating matches, joining matches, retrieving match/group info, and generating schedules—are well covered. Update/cancel/leave operations are absent, but the organizer manageUrl suggests those happen outside the MCP surface, so this is a minor gap rather than a dead end.