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 returns data (member names, jersey numbers, etc.), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or data format specifics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and resource, and the second specifies the return data. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. No extraneous information is included.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return data, but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or sibling tool relationships. Without annotations or output schema, more context on behavior would improve completeness, but it meets the minimum for a simple read operation.

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 'team_id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how to obtain the team ID or validate it). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the roster (players and coaches) for a team.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('roster'), and scope ('for a team'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'teamsnap_get_team' or 'teamsnap_get_events'. The mention of returned data (names, jersey numbers, etc.) adds clarity, but sibling distinction is not addressed.

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., authentication status), compare to sibling tools (e.g., 'teamsnap_get_team' for team details vs. roster), or specify contexts like needing a team ID first. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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