CTFtime MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions what data is returned (competition results with top teams and scores) but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, pagination, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 extremely concise and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first. The formatting with Args and Returns sections enhances readability.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and only one parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description provides adequate basic information. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple sibling tools that might overlap in functionality, more contextual guidance would be helpful to ensure proper tool selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description effectively compensates by explaining the year parameter's purpose and default behavior ('default: all available'). This adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't specify format constraints or valid year ranges.

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 with the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'CTF event results and scores'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_event_details (which likely provides detailed event information) and get_top_teams (which focuses on team rankings). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_past_ctfs which might overlap in scope.

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 alternatives. With siblings like get_past_ctfs, get_top_teams, and search_events that might retrieve similar or overlapping data, there's no indication of when this specific results-retrieval tool is preferred. The only usage hint is the optional year parameter.

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