get_sports_facility_hoursRead official weekday and weekend opening hours for İTÜ sports facilities, optionally for a specific facility. Use it to check when a campus sports venue is open.
Read official weekday/weekend opening hours for İTÜ sports facilities (public).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| facility | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context with '(public)', signalling no authentication is required, but says nothing about caching, staleness, or coverage when no facility is specified.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word (verb, resource, weekday/weekend scope, public access) earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. The remaining gap is the undocumented optional 'facility' filter and the absence of any usage context, which leaves the definition adequate but not fully self-sufficient.
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?
The single 'facility' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so there is no clarification of what values it accepts, whether it is a name or code, or what is returned when it is null. With coverage under 50%, the description is expected to compensate but does not.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource (İTÜ sports facility opening hours), and the 'weekday/weekend' qualifier scopes the data clearly. The resource is unique among siblings like get_cafeteria_menu or get_shuttle_schedule, so it is naturally distinguishable, though the description does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for checking sports facility hours. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no condition for choosing it over other campus-info tools, and no note on what happens when the facility is omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.