Search French Chess Federation player records by last name to retrieve FFE number and published standard Elo.
Recherche un joueur dans le fichier des licencies de la Federation Francaise des Echecs (FFE) par nom de famille (ou debut de nom). Retourne le numero FFE (NrFFE) et l'Elo standard publie de chaque joueur trouve.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nom | Yes | Nom (ou debut de nom) du joueur a rechercher |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose core behavior: search by full or partial family name and return FFE number and Elo. However, it omits potentially relevant behavioral details such as case/accent handling, result ordering or limits, and behavior when no player matches.
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 with the purpose front-loaded and the return value stated. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input semantics and return fields. Minor missing details like result ordering or empty-result behavior are non-critical for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already defines 'nom' as the name or beginning of the name. The description reinforces this with 'nom de famille' and adds return-value context, but it does not materially extend the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb ('Recherche'), a precise resource (FFE licensed players file), and a clear search criterion (last name or prefix). It also states what is returned (NrFFE and published Elo), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the tournament-related sibling 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever a player needs to be looked up by name in the FFE database. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are all tournament-oriented, so the intended context is clear enough without explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.