Retrieve a team's disclosed caselist with rounds and cites to scout opposing arguments and build rebuttals.
A team's caselist page: rounds (tournament, side, opponent, round report, open-source file path) and cites (their disclosed cards). Use for scouting and building blocks against their case.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | Yes | ||
| school | Yes | ||
| caselist | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "string"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Result"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "caselist_teamOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says what the page contains (rounds and cites) and implies a read operation by calling it a 'page', but it does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, error behavior, or whether the data is publicly accessible. This is a significant gap.
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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the resource and its content before the use case. Every piece of information (page contents, purpose) is relevant, though it could be slightly tighter by merging the final clause, but overall it is efficient.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return structure and parameter behavior. It lists the fields present (tournament, side, opponent, etc.) but does not cover how parameters filter or shape the result, what the optional 'caselist' does, or any edge cases. It is only partially complete for a simple retrieval tool.
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 for three undocumented parameters. It only implies that school and team identify the team, and does not explain the 'caselist' parameter or its default null behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.
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 identifies the tool as returning a team's caselist page with specific content (rounds and cites). It is highly specific about the resource, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get' and does not directly contrast with sibling tools such as caselist_search or caselist_download.
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 states a clear use case ('Use for scouting and building blocks against their case'), which gives context for when to call it. However, it does not mention alternatives, when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like caselist_search or caselist_download, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.