List signups for a gliding club between two inclusive dates (YYYY-MM-DD) in one read-only API call.
Liste les inscriptions sur une plage de dates (AAAA-MM-JJ, bornes incluses). Lecture seule (1 appel API).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | ||
| start_date | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add value by declaring 'Lecture seule (1 appel API)' — a safety and cost/quota signal. However it omits return shape, pagination, or result-size behavior for a listing tool, leaving meaningful 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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the format and read-only notes. Every clause contributes; nothing is padded.
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?
For a simple 2-param listing tool with no output schema or annotations, the definition covers purpose, format, and read-only status, but omits anything about the returned data or result limits. It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing on outputs.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it usefully specifies the date format (AAAA-MM-JJ) and that bounds are inclusive, which is genuine semantic value. It still does not clarify per-parameter meaning beyond the obvious names, so it only partially compensates.
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 states a specific verb ('Liste') plus resource ('inscriptions') plus scope ('plage de dates'), and the inclusive-bounds format makes the range semantics concrete. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_signups to contrast with, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 date-range scoping implies when this tool is appropriate versus an unfiltered list, but there is no explicit 'use this when / use get_signups instead' guidance. Usage is only inferable from the range wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.