FirstCycling 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. It discloses that the tool returns 'detailed information' and a 'formatted string' with specific content (overall classification, stage wins, etc.), and mentions data is 'organized chronologically.' However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage notes, examples, and return details. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff—making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 single parameter, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description does a solid job by covering purpose, usage, parameter context, and return format. However, it could be more complete by mentioning any data recency limits or access constraints, which are relevant for a data-fetching tool.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that the rider_id parameter should be obtained via search_rider if unknown, and provides example IDs (e.g., 16973 for Tadej Pogačar). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail ID format or validation rules.

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 specific action ('Get comprehensive results'), resource ('rider in Grand Tours'), and scope ('Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, and Vuelta a España'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_rider_monument_results or get_rider_one_day_races by focusing exclusively on three-week races.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'If you don't know the rider's ID, use the search_rider tool first to find it by name.' This directly addresses a common prerequisite and names the alternative tool, giving clear when-to-use instructions.

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