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. It discloses that the tool returns a list with IDs, names, and locations, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a search 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 core purpose, followed by return format and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, 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 1 parameter with no schema descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the parameter. However, it could benefit from mentioning limitations (e.g., partial matches, result limits) to be fully 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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'name' parameter can be used for both organization names and city names (e.g., 'Paris', 'Basket Club'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. This adequately covers the single parameter's purpose.

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 searches for FFBB clubs, associations, or organizations by name or city, with specific examples provided. It distinguishes from siblings like ffbb_get_organisme (likely a single lookup) and ffbb_search_competitions (different resource type). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with ffbb_multi_search, which might overlap in functionality.

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 for searching organizations by name or city, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like ffbb_multi_search or ffbb_get_organisme. It provides examples ('Paris', 'Lyon') that suggest context, but lacks clear exclusions or comparative guidance with sibling tools.

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