Retrieve French Chess Federation tournament details using its reference, including time control, round count, and announcement.
Recupere la cadence (standard/rapide/blitz), le nombre de rondes et l'annonce d'un tournoi FFE a partir de sa reference (voir lister_tournois pour obtenir une reference).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Reference du tournoi (champ ref renvoye par lister_tournois) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Recupere' implies a read-only retrieval, and the description identifies the returned data, but it does not explicitly address side effects, error cases, or any special prerequisites beyond obtaining a reference.
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 a single compact sentence that states what is retrieved and where to get the input. Every clause is useful, and the cross-reference to lister_tournois is placed naturally without padding.
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?
The tool has exactly one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the input source, the required argument, and the three meaningful output fields, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 100%: the single required parameter 'ref' is already described in the schema as the reference returned by lister_tournois. The description essentially repeats that information, adding no new format or constraint details.
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 specifies a clear verb ('Recupere') and a precise resource: cadence, number of rounds, and announcement of an FFE tournament. It also mentions how to obtain the required reference via lister_tournois, which helps distinguish this details-fetching tool from the sibling listing, classification, and results tools.
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 gives a clear usage sequence by pointing to lister_tournois as the source for a valid reference. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of classement_tournoi or resultats_joueur_tournoi, but the intended context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.