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 mentions the tool returns a list of competitions with IDs and basic info, which is helpful. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core functionality in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful examples without unnecessary elaboration. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 (search function with one parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and provides examples, but it lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and full parameter semantics. The output schema existence helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations and low schema coverage.

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 some meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that the 'name' parameter is used to search competitions by name (e.g., championnat, coupe) and provides examples. However, with 0% schema description coverage (the schema only lists 'name' as a string without description), the description doesn't fully compensate—it doesn't explain the expected format, case sensitivity, or partial matching behavior. The baseline is 3 because the description provides basic context but leaves parameter details incomplete.

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: searching FFBB competitions by name and returning a list with IDs and basic information. It provides specific examples ('Championnat', 'Nationale', etc.) that illustrate the type of competitions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ffbb_search_organismes' or 'ffbb_search_rencontres', which is why it doesn't achieve 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ffbb_get_competition' (which might retrieve details for a specific competition ID) or 'ffbb_multi_search' (which might handle broader searches). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic search functionality.

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