FirstCycling MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'returns a formatted string' with details like ranking list and filtering, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior (implied by 'page_num' parameter but not explained).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement. The example usage and return format sections are useful but could be more concise. Overall, most sentences earn their place, though the return format description is somewhat repetitive (e.g., 'Filtered by specified categories' could be integrated).

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and examples but lacks completeness. It doesn't fully explain parameter semantics, behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors), or output details beyond a vague 'formatted string'. For a tool with this complexity, it should do more to compensate for missing structured data.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by 'ranking type, year, and category' and provides examples that hint at parameters (e.g., 'World UCI rider rankings for 2023'), but doesn't fully explain all 5 parameters (category, country_code, page_num, rank_type, year) or their semantics (e.g., what values rank_type accepts). The description adds some meaning but insufficiently covers the parameters.

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 'gets UCI rankings for riders, teams, or nations' with specific resources (riders/teams/nations) and action (get rankings). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on rankings rather than race details, rider histories, or search functions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_rider_team_and_ranking' which might overlap.

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 implied usage through examples (e.g., 'Get World UCI rider rankings for 2023'), suggesting when to use this tool for ranking data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_rider_team_and_ranking' or other sibling tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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