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 mentions the year parameter behavior (defaults to current if omitted) but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'top' means (e.g., ranking criteria, data source). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the purpose and key parameter behavior. It's appropriately front-loaded and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose and parameter default. However, for a tool that likely returns ranked data, it lacks details on output format, pagination, or error cases, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.

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 fully documents both parameters (year and limit). The description adds marginal value by clarifying the year's default behavior ('current year if omitted'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already specifies (e.g., how 'top' is determined).

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 resource ('teams'), with specific temporal context ('for a year'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ctftime_team' (single team) and 'ctftime_top_by_country' (country-filtered), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'ctftime_results' which might also involve rankings.

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 for retrieving ranked teams by year, with a default to current year if omitted. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., vs. 'ctftime_top_by_country' for country-specific rankings), leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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