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 mentions the tool returns matches with dates, teams, and results if available, which gives some context about output behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination for large result sets. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful examples without unnecessary elaboration. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates key information in two sentences, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from examples.

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 documents return values), the description doesn't need to explain return details. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should provide more context on usage scenarios, limitations, or behavioral traits. The description covers basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks completeness for a search tool that might have nuances like result filtering or performance considerations.

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 explains that the 'name' parameter is used for searching by team or competition name and provides examples, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matches) or clarify if it accepts multiple names, leaving some ambiguity. This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.

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 basketball matches (rencontres) by team or competition name, returning matches with dates, teams, and results. It provides specific examples ('ASVEL', 'Metropolitans', 'Nationale 1'), making the purpose concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ffbb_search_competitions or ffbb_multi_search, which might have overlapping 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions searching by team or competition name but doesn't clarify if this is the preferred method over other search tools (e.g., ffbb_search_competitions) or when to choose one over the other. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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