FFBB 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 what data is returned (ranking, teams, matches played and upcoming) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is informative but lacks critical operational details.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and return data, and another providing usage context. It is front-loaded with the core function and has zero wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving detailed pool data), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what is returned and usage context, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral constraints, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, but there is only 1 parameter (poule_id). The description adds meaning by explaining that the pool ID is available from competition details (ffbb_get_competition), providing context beyond the schema's basic type and title. This compensates well for the low coverage with a single parameter.

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 'Récupère' (retrieves) and the resource 'détails d'une poule/groupe' (details of a pool/group), specifying it returns ranking, teams, and matches. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pool details rather than competitions, lives, organisms, seasons, or searches.

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 by mentioning that the pool ID is available from competition details (ffbb_get_competition), indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implied sibling tool.

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