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. It discloses the return format ('Ranked list of top CTF teams with scores') and default behaviors, but lacks details about rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error conditions. It adequately describes the core operation but misses advanced behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value: the first sets context, the second explains parameters with constraints, and the third describes output. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It fully documents parameter semantics and mentions the return format, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., rate limits). The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, making this reasonably comprehensive for its complexity.

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 fully. It successfully adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining both parameters: 'year' as 'Specific year for rankings (default: current year)' and 'limit' as 'Maximum number of teams to return (1-100, default: 10)'. This provides crucial context like range constraints and default values not in the schema.

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 specific action ('Retrieve top-ranked CTF teams') and resource ('from CTFtime.org'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_team_info (individual team details) or get_top_teams_by_country (country-filtered rankings). The verb 'retrieve' is precise and the source is explicitly identified.

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 implies usage for obtaining top team rankings, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_top_teams_by_country or get_team_info. It mentions the default year and limit, which hints at typical usage, but lacks clear when/when-not statements or sibling tool comparisons.

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