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 what information is returned (name, address, type, teams) which is helpful, but doesn't mention error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adequately covers the basic behavior but lacks operational 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and what it returns, the second provides crucial usage guidance. There is no wasted language or redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides good coverage: it explains the purpose, what information is returned, and how to obtain the required parameter. The main gap is the lack of operational context (error handling, authentication), but given the tool's apparent simplicity, the description is reasonably 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'organisme_id' identifies a specific club/organization and mentions that ffbb_search_organismes can be used to find this ID. This adds meaningful context about what the parameter represents and how to obtain valid values.

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 informations détaillées'), target resource ('un club ou organisme FFBB'), and key identifier ('par son ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying this is for retrieving detailed information about a single organization, unlike search tools that find multiple results.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by stating 'Utilise ffbb_search_organismes pour trouver l'ID d'un club,' clearly naming the alternative tool for finding IDs. This creates a clear workflow relationship between the two tools.

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