Katzilla MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, but the description adds valuable context beyond these: it specifies the data source (TheSportsDB), its tier and limitations (Free tier, non-commercial, updates daily), and details the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation info including SHA-256 hash). This enhances the agent's understanding of data freshness, licensing, and auditability.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and source, and the second details the return format and its components. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the description of the Katzilla envelope), the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, limitations, and return format, providing sufficient context for the agent to use the tool effectively without needing to explain return values in detail.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'date' fully documented in the schema as 'Date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD)'. The description does not add any further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as date range constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sports events and scores'), specifies the data source (TheSportsDB), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on live scores for a specific date rather than schedules or team info. It explicitly mentions the Katzilla envelope structure for the return data.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Get sports events and scores for a specific date'), mentions the data source and its limitations (Free tier, non-commercial, updates daily), and implies usage for date-specific queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., sports__league-schedules or sports__team-info).

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