BL Sports Website MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds specific behavioral details: output format (Markdown or stripped text), a character limit (40,000), and domain restriction (michaelbarber.tech). This enriches the behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, though it does not mention error handling or truncation behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the core action first, then adds format and limit details. There is no filler or unnecessary information.

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 tool with one parameter and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It specifies the target domain, output format, and size limit. Missing details like behavior on inaccessible pages or exact meaning of 'stripped text' are minor given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior.

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 must compensate. It adds the domain restriction (https://michaelbarber.tech) and clarifies the URL is a page from that site. However, it does not elaborate on the parameter's format beyond the schema's URI type, leaving some ambiguity about required URL structure (e.g., trailing slashes, query strings).

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 reads a single page from a specific domain (michaelbarber.tech) and outputs Markdown or stripped text. It distinguishes itself from siblings (search_pages, site_info) by explicitly focusing on content retrieval rather than searching or site-level metadata.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention search_pages or site_info as alternatives, nor does it give any conditions for selection. The only implied context is that it is for reading page content, which is insufficient without explicit routing.

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?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context: it is a sitemap-based URL-path search and returns URLs with a match score. It does not cover no-result behavior or ranking details, but the safety profile is already handled by annotations.

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 sentences with no filler: the first fronts the action and scoping, the second states the return value. Every clause adds useful information for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 low complexity, rich annotations, and no output schema, this description is complete enough: an agent knows what it searches, how it searches, and what it returns. The only minor omissions, explicit sibling comparison and limit semantics, are covered elsewhere or are not essential to invoking this tool correctly.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the query parameter as words in the URL path, but it does not describe the limit parameter's effect on result count or how the match score relates to the query. The schema provides types and bounds, but not semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource (pages on michaelbarber.tech), and a precise matching mechanism ('words in their URL path'). It also states the output ('URLs with a match score'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools read_page and site_info.

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 makes the use case clear: locate pages by URL-path words via sitemap search, rather than reading a specific page or getting site-level info. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly name alternatives like read_page or site_info.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what content is included—links to sitemap, docs, contact, and discovery documents—which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('What BL Sports is') and then enumerates the key included resources. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

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 zero-parameter site-information tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it conveys what the tool offers and what destinations it links to. It does not describe the exact return format, but given the simple informational nature and absent output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's informational output rather than parameter details, and the schema coverage is perfect for an empty parameter set.

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 identifies the tool as returning information about BL Sports, including links to sitemap, docs, contact, and discovery documents. It states the resource and scope well, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools read_page or search_pages.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need an overview of the site or its discovery documents. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer site_info over read_page or search_pages, and no exclusions are stated.

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