mcp-ctftime

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 adds useful context about using UNIX timestamps and returning both past and upcoming events, but it doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (since none exist), but it lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covering key details like timestamp format and event types. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic operation and timestamp format but lacks details on return values, error cases, or how results are ordered. Without an output schema, more explanation of the response structure would be beneficial for completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, start, finish) with descriptions, types, and constraints. The description adds minimal value by mentioning UNIX timestamps for start/finish, which is already in the schema, and doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('CTFtime events') with scope ('in a time window'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ctftime_event (singular) or ctftime_results, which could be listing-related but for different resources.

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 implies usage by specifying 'past and upcoming events' and the time window context, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ctftime_results or ctftime_top_teams. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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