mcp-ctftime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results are in (e.g., list, summary), if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get event results') and includes the key detail about the optional parameter. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'event results' entail (e.g., rankings, scores), the return format, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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%, with the parameter 'year' fully documented in the schema (type, range, description). The description adds marginal value by mentioning the default behavior ('current year if omitted'), which isn't in the schema, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like format examples beyond 'e.g., 2025'. 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 'Get' and resource 'event results', specifying the temporal scope 'for a year'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ctftime_event' (single event) and 'ctftime_events' (multiple events), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other result-related tools. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 when needing yearly event results, with the default behavior 'current year if omitted' providing some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'ctftime_top_teams' or 'ctftime_top_by_country', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is functional but lacks sibling differentiation.

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