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 tool's function and output format, but doesn't address potential behavioral aspects like error conditions (e.g., what happens with invalid race IDs), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it).

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 efficiently structured with purpose statement, important notes, usage examples, and return format - all in well-organized paragraphs. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and critical information (like the search_race prerequisite) is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about the tool being read-only or any error handling, but given the clear 'Get' verb and detailed examples, it's largely complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'race_id' is required and identifies the specific race edition, while 'year' is optional with default behavior (current year if unspecified). The examples further clarify parameter usage with concrete values.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('start list for a specific edition of a cycling race'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on rider/team participation data rather than race results, rider history, or rankings. It explicitly mentions what the start list includes (rider numbers, names, and teams).

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 vs alternatives: it directs users to use 'search_race' first if they don't know the race ID, and clarifies that if no year is specified, the current year will be used. This addresses both prerequisites and parameter defaults.

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