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 discloses that the tool retrieves a list and returns IDs and names, which is basic behavioral info. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read-only tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive, as it doesn't fully cover behavioral traits beyond the core operation.

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 main purpose, followed by parameter details and return value info, all in two concise sentences. There is no wasted text, and each part adds value, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (which likely covers return values), the description doesn't need to explain returns in detail, and it appropriately mentions that IDs and names are returned. With 1 parameter and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be more complete by addressing potential errors or usage scenarios relative to siblings.

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 for the single parameter 'active_only', explaining it as a boolean to filter for active seasons only. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides title and type without description), the description compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose. With 1 parameter and good coverage, it earns a high score, though not perfect as it could elaborate more on default behavior.

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 tool's purpose: 'Récupère la liste des saisons de basketball' (Retrieves the list of basketball seasons). It specifies the resource (saisons/seasons) and verb (récupère/retrieves), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ffbb_get_competition' or 'ffbb_search_competitions', which might also involve season-related data, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 by mentioning the optional parameter 'active_only' for filtering to active seasons, suggesting it's useful for narrowing down results. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ffbb_search_competitions' or other siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but limited to parameter context.

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