mcp-ctftime

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (though there's no output schema).

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 purpose with no wasted words. Every element (action, resource, scope, parameter format) earns its place without redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameter context. However, it lacks behavioral details (like whether it's safe to call frequently) and output expectations, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand complete usage.

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 fully documents the single 'country_code' parameter. The description adds the context that it's for 'the current year' and specifies ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 lowercase format, which provides some additional meaning beyond the schema's basic description.

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 action ('Get top teams') and the resource ('by country'), specifying the current year scope and country code format. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ctftime_top_teams' by focusing on country-based ranking rather than global ranking, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 seeking country-specific team rankings for the current year, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ctftime_top_teams' or 'ctftime_team'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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