TeamSnap 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 states the tool retrieves events with optional date filtering, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it supports pagination or rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with two sentences that directly state the purpose and key functionality (filtering). Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and well-structured without any wasted text.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering option, but lacks details on authentication needs, response format, error handling, or sibling tool distinctions. With no annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial for a complete understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (team_id, start_date, end_date), including format details for dates. The description adds marginal value by mentioning optional date range filtering, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers, such as how filtering works or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('events for a team') with examples of event types ('games, practices, etc.'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'teamsnap_get_event' (singular), which might retrieve a single event, leaving some ambiguity in sibling 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 description implies usage by mentioning optional filtering by date range, which suggests when to use this tool for date-based queries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'teamsnap_get_event' or 'teamsnap_list_teams', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication, leaving usage context partially implied.

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