List marathons whose next running date falls within a specified week window, using each race's scheduling rule to help you plan training and race blocks.
Marathons in the catalogue whose next running falls inside the window. Dates come from each race's scheduling rule — confirm with the organiser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_weeks_out | No | ||
| min_weeks_out | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data provenance (dates derived from each race's scheduling rule) and warns that dates are unreliable, which no annotation or schema field conveys. It says nothing about return shape, ordering, or whether the window is inclusive, so the disclosure is partial.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the filtered resource and scope. The second sentence carries the provenance caveat, which is genuinely informative rather than filler; only the 'confirm with the organiser' tail is arguably padding.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description must explain both the window semantics and what a returned marathon entry contains. It explains neither, leaving an agent unable to map min/max weeks to real dates or know what fields each race will carry.
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 0%, so both parameters depend on the description, which only gestures at them with the word 'window'. It never states that the bounds are in weeks, that max_weeks_out=104 spans two years, that min_weeks_out=0 means including imminent/recent races, or how the two bounds interact.
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?
It names the resource (marathons in the catalogue) and the exact filtering criterion (next running inside the window), which is specific enough to separate it from pick_random_marathon or create_marathon_plan. The verb 'list' is only implicit in the sentence fragment, and no sibling is named as a contrast.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus pick_random_marathon or create_marathon_plan, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is a data-quality caveat ('confirm with the organiser'), which is not usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.