FFBB 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 describes the tool's function and output format, but lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness. It does not contradict any annotations, but could be more informative about operational constraints.

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 in the first sentence, followed by output details and usage context. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and efficiently structured for clarity.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for a read-only tool. However, it could benefit from mentioning any assumptions (e.g., data source, update frequency) to fully cover contextual needs, especially with no annotations.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description adds value by explaining the output semantics.

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 ('Récupère les matchs de basketball en cours'), the resource ('matchs de basketball'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on live matches only. It explicitly mentions what it returns ('liste des rencontres avec les scores actuels, les équipes et le statut du match'), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('pour suivre les matchs en temps réel'), indicating it's for real-time tracking of live basketball matches. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as ffbb_search_rencontres for non-live matches, which prevents a perfect score.

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