BL Sports Website MCP

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two output formats and a hard 40,000-character truncation cap, plus an implicit domain restriction, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, redirect handling, or what happens on a failed fetch.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the format and size constraints. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, the two possible return formats, and the size limit. Missing only edge-case behavior such as error handling and whether the URL must be absolute.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'url' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by implying the URL must point at a michaelbarber.tech page, but gives no format guidance (absolute vs relative, canonical form) beyond the schema's 'uri' type.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one ... page'), plus the output forms (Markdown via Cloudflare Markdown for Agents, or stripped text). The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_pages, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 singular 'one page' implies this is for fetching a single known URL rather than searching, which is the right context, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus search_pages or site_info, nor states any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (URLs with a match score) and the search source (sitemap), but says nothing about result ordering, partial-match behavior, or how the limit interacts with the returned set.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the scope of the search is front-loaded and the return contract follows immediately.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what is searched, what is returned) but omits limit semantics and ranking behavior. It is workable but leaves gaps an agent would have to discover empirically.

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% for both parameters. The description loosely clarifies that 'query' is matched against words in the URL path, but adds no detail on matching rules or on 'limit' (its default of 20, maximum of 50, or its effect on results).

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 (find), resource (pages on michaelbarber.tech), and the exact matching dimension (words in the URL path, sourced from the sitemap). This implicitly separates it from read_page (content retrieval) and site_info, though neither sibling is named.

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 by restricting the search to URL path words, which tells the agent this is a URL discovery tool rather than a content search. However, it never states when to prefer read_page or site_info, nor any exclusion such as 'does not search page body text'.

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 no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the returned content set (links to sitemap, docs, contact, discovery documents). It is a zero-parameter read-only call, so safety risk is minimal, but it says nothing about response format, authentication, or whether the URL/tenant is fixed versus configurable.

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 that opens with the resource identity and then lists the payload. Efficient with no filler, though the parenthetical host is a slight interruption and the phrase 'every discovery document' is vaguer than the rest of the enumeration.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does list the main returned artifacts. For a trivial zero-param informational tool this is close to sufficient; only the exact response shape and how the discovery documents are keyed remain unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, and the rules set the baseline at 4 for parameterless tools. There is nothing further the description could realistically add on the parameter front; the parenthetical host name usefully pins down which site is described.

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 concrete resource (BL Sports site metadata) and enumerates the specific contents returned: sitemap, docs, contact, and discovery documents. It implicitly separates itself from read_page/search_pages by being a catalog rather than a content fetcher, though it never states that contrast.

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 rather than stated: describing itself as a directory of 'every discovery document' suggests it is the entry/orientation call before drilling into read_page or search_pages. However, it never explicitly says when to call it instead of its siblings, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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