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 but offers minimal information. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., team metadata, members, settings), whether it requires authentication (implied by sibling tools like 'teamsnap_auth'), or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or how it differs from sibling tools beyond the obvious resource focus. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about proper invocation and result interpretation.

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 'team_id' documented as 'The TeamSnap team ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific team'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'teamsnap_list_teams' by specifying retrieval of a single team's details rather than listing multiple teams. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get operations like 'teamsnap_get_event' or 'teamsnap_get_roster' beyond the resource type.

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 it to 'teamsnap_list_teams' for scenarios where the team ID is unknown, or indicate when other get tools might be more appropriate. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description context.

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