invoke_pga_strokes_gainedSeason strokes gained by player: total, tee to green, off the tee, approach, around the green and putting, plus measured rounds, scoring average and birdie or better rate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return. The plan limit applies on top. | |
| player | No | Player name, for example Scottie Scheffler. | |
| sort_by | No | Sort field. | |
| sort_dir | No | Sort direction: desc or asc. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned stat categories, but says nothing about the shape of the response, row limits beyond the schema note, or how season aggregation is bounded.
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 that names the resource and its fields with no filler. Slightly dense with an enumerated list, but every element corresponds to actual output data.
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 output schema, the description usefully lists the returned stat categories, and all four parameters are documented in the schema while annotations cover safety. The only gap is the absence of usage routing against the many sibling PGA tools.
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 documents limit, player, sort_by, and sort_dir. The metric list in the description loosely maps to the sort_by enum values but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making this a baseline 3.
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 resource (season strokes gained by player) and enumerates the metrics covered (total, tee to green, off the tee, approach, around the green, putting) plus supplementary stats. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does no explicit differentiation from sibling PGA tools like invoke_pga_projections or invoke_pga_course_history.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. The description only implies context ('season' stats) and never tells the agent to prefer this over projections, course history, or player index tools.
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.