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 of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes the retrieval operation and output format, but lacks details about error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. It doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 with purpose, usage note, examples, and return format sections. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value. It could be more concise by combining some details about the return format.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, parameters, usage guidance, examples, and return format. It adequately compensates for the lack of structured metadata, though could benefit from more behavioral details.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that rider_id identifies the cyclist and year is an optional filter, and provides concrete examples with specific IDs (16973, 16974). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('get', 'retrieves') and resource ('complete race history of a professional cyclist'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive historical data rather than specific result types (e.g., best results, victories) or other rider information.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it specifies to use search_rider first if the rider ID is unknown, and mentions optional year filtering. This directly addresses a key usage scenario and references a sibling tool.

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