ffbb_versionVersion et configuration runtime du serveur FFBB MCP.
Version et configuration runtime du serveur FFBB MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "ffbb_versionDictOutput",
- "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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the scope of the payload (version plus runtime configuration), which is useful but thin — no mention of whether the config could expose sensitive values or whether auth is required.
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 with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though it omits the 'diagnostics' aspect advertised in the title, so the sentence is not earning every bit of value it could.
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 zero-parameter, non-destructive read with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly: it names the returned content (version and runtime configuration). Missing only minor context such as cost/latency or auth expectations.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate inputs, and no param detail is missing.
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 resource — server version and runtime configuration of the FFBB MCP server — which is unmistakably distinct from every sibling (saisons, lives, bilan, search, regulations, team tools) that deal with FFBB data rather than server metadata. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is only implied by the title ('Version et diagnostics serveur'), letting an agent infer this is a diagnostic call rather than a data lookup. No prerequisites or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.