match_me_a_clubRecomienda el club de ELSA que mejor calza con tu volumen y zona, y te lleva a unirte y confirmar tu primer evento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | City or area | |
| preferred_days | No | ||
| weekly_volume_km | Yes | Typical weekly volume in km |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a write operation ('te lleva a unirte y confirmar tu primer evento'), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This is a direct contradiction, severely undermining transparency. The description should align with the annotation or clarify the join flow as a separate action.
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 sentence with 150 characters, front-loading the verb 'recommend'. It is efficient but could benefit from breaking into clearer components (e.g., recommendation, then join action).
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 3 params, no output schema, and a contradictory annotation, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain how preferred_days is used, what the output looks like, or resolve the read/write inconsistency. The join process is mentioned but not clarified that it may involve external navigation.
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 coverage is 67%, with descriptions for location and weekly_volume_km. The description mentions 'volume and zone' mapping to these params, but adds no new detail for preferred_days. It provides marginal additional meaning but does not fully compensate for the missing schema 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 tool recommends an ELSA club based on volume and area, and guides the user to join and confirm their first event. It uses specific verbs and resource, and differentiates from sibling tool plan_my_block which likely handles planning blocks rather than club matching.
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 a user wants a club recommendation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool plan_my_block. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one recommends a club, the other plans a training block. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal for a 'gateway' concept. It may be appropriate for a very narrow scope but is at the lower bound of reasonable tool counts.
The server covers club matching and training planning, but lacks other lifecycle operations like tracking progress or managing events, leaving notable gaps for a cycling app domain.