Skip to main content
Glama

Sports Rules

by com.gumballtools

How soccer offside and hockey offside differ

offside_rule_contrast
Read-only

Return the structural differences between soccer offside and hockey offside, dimension by dimension.

Use this when someone asks how the two compare, or when you are about to reason about one sport using an intuition from the other — which is the commonest way to get either wrong. They differ on what part of the player is measured, when the picture freezes, whether position alone is an offence, what happens at exactly level, what resets the situation, and which restarts are exempt.

Takes no arguments. Returns the comparison table.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark it read-only and closed-world, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns a comparison table. Since there is no output schema, disclosing the return format and the dimensions covered gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage context, the list of comparison dimensions, and the return format. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-argument comparison tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it gives the exact scope, the trigger conditions, the dimensions covered, and the return type. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without further clarification.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description additionally states 'Takes no arguments,' which removes any doubt even though the schema already makes this clear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the structural differences between soccer offside and hockey offside, dimension by dimension.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and inherently distinguishes it from the single-sport sibling 'offside'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when someone asks how the two compare, or when reasoning about one sport using intuition from the other. It does not name the alternative tool or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Sports Rules toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The offside tool computes a call for a specific scenario, while offside_rule_contrast returns a static comparison table. Their purposes are completely distinct and clearly labeled; no agent could confuse which to invoke.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools use lowercase snake_case and share the 'offside' domain prefix. While not verb_noun, the pattern is perfectly consistent given the server's narrow scope.

Tool Count3/5

At two tools, the server is minimal but tailored to a hyper-specific purpose (offside in soccer and hockey). It feels slightly thin—an 'explain offside rule' per sport might round it out—but the two tools cover the core use cases.

Completeness4/5

For the inferred domain of offside decisions across two sports, the tools cover the decision procedure, key edge cases, and cross-sport differences. A minor gap is the lack of a standalone rule explainer, and the server name 'Sports Rules' suggests a broader scope that isn't implemented.

Resources