CTFtime MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving past events but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 and simple parameters, the description covers the basics adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits) and usage context, which are important for a tool interacting with an external API like CTFtime.org.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema by explaining what 'limit' and 'days_back' parameters do, including default values and ranges. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it could be more detailed (e.g., explaining how 'days_back' is calculated).

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('past CTF events from CTFtime.org'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_upcoming_ctfs' or 'search_events', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_upcoming_ctfs' for future events or 'search_events' for broader queries. The description lacks any context about usage scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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