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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's scope (global search across six data types) and provides usage examples, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is adequate but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third gives concrete examples. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key information.

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 (multi-category search), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and examples, though additional behavioral details (like result limits or error cases) would enhance completeness for a tool with no annotation support.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explicitly mention the 'name' parameter, but the examples ('Lyon', 'Pro A', 'Palais des Sports') strongly imply it's a search query parameter. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about parameter 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Effectue une recherche globale') and resource ('tous les types de données FFBB'), listing six concrete categories (compétitions, clubs, matchs, salles, tournois, terrains). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a multi-category search tool versus the more specific single-category search tools in the sibling list.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Idéal pour une première exploration ou quand on ne sait pas dans quelle catégorie chercher.' This provides clear guidance for its intended context (initial exploration or uncertainty about category) versus the more targeted sibling tools like ffbb_search_competitions or ffbb_search_salles.

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