CTFtime MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving events and returns a formatted list, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not detail return values, and it adequately covers the purpose and parameters. However, with no annotations and multiple siblings, it could improve by adding more context on usage and behavioral aspects to be fully complete.

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, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'limit' controls the maximum number of events (with a range of 1-100) and 'days_ahead' specifies how far to look into the future, including default values. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the resource 'upcoming CTF events from CTFtime.org', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_past_ctfs' or 'search_events', which would require mentioning time-based filtering or scope differences.

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', 'search_events', and 'get_ctf_calendar', it lacks explicit context such as 'use this for future events only' or comparisons to other tools, leaving usage unclear.

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