TeamSnap 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't mention authentication requirements (implied by sibling tools), rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. For a read operation in an API context, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly implies a read-only action without contradiction.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's function and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving structured availability data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what data is fetched but misses important context like authentication needs, response structure, and error cases. It's complete enough to understand the basic purpose but insufficient for reliable agent invocation without additional assumptions.

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 'event_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples or constraints). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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: 'Get availability responses for an event' with specific details about what it shows ('who is available, unavailable, or hasn't responded'). It distinguishes from siblings like teamsnap_get_event or teamsnap_get_events by focusing on availability data rather than general event information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication first via teamsnap_auth), nor does it clarify if this should be used before or after getting event details with teamsnap_get_event. There's no explicit 'when-not' or alternative tool suggestions, leaving usage context unclear.

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