ffbb_saisonsListe des saisons FFBB (référentiel temporel).
Liste des saisons FFBB (référentiel temporel).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active_only | No | True = saison active uniquement. | |
| force_refresh | No | Si True, contourne le cache. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.13.0Input schema / properties / force_refreshAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Si True, contourne le cache.",
+ "title": "Force Refresh",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.9.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "ffbb_get_saisonsOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv1.3.2v1.3.1v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the referential framing and says nothing about caching behavior, which the force_refresh parameter implies exists.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is arguably too terse for a tool with a cache-control parameter, but every word does earn its place.
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 simple two-optional-boolean reference list with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool. It leaves clear gaps around sibling routing and cache/refresh semantics that an agent might need in this crowded toolset.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so active_only and force_refresh are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond that baseline.
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?
States a specific verb ("Liste") and resource ("saisons FFBB"), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as ffbb_bilan_saison or ffbb_version, which a season-reference tool arguably should.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The parenthetical "référentiel temporel" faintly implies this is the canonical season list, but an agent gets no explicit routing rule against the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.