TeamSnap MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return data (team names, IDs, etc.) but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 two concise sentences: one stating the action and scope, another detailing the return data. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and return data, yet without annotations or output schema, it misses behavioral aspects like authentication needs or response format details. For a list tool, this is minimally viable but has clear gaps in context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, with schema description coverage at 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids discussing non-existent inputs. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 action ('List all TeamSnap teams') and resource ('teams'), specifying it returns team names, IDs, sport, division, and season info. It distinguishes from siblings like 'teamsnap_get_team' (singular) by indicating it lists all accessible teams, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list-like tools (e.g., 'teamsnap_get_events' for events).

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 when needing to list all accessible teams, with 'you have access to' suggesting permission-based filtering. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'teamsnap_get_team' for a specific team or other sibling tools, leaving context somewhat inferred rather than stated.

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