Jock Taxes Developer MCP

List team players

list_team_players

Read-only

List player ids and pay for one team and season from the salary tables. Requires league, team, and season_id. Match the user's name against name and last_first. If several rows fit, or none fit, ask the user which person they mean. Copy season_total into the calculator's one-amount field, or copy base_salary, signing_bonus, and performance_bonus for Salary + Bonuses. Does not use request quota.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "league": "<league>",
      "team": "<team>",
      "season_id": "<season_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_team_players"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team`	Yes
`league`	Yes
`season_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team`	Yes
`league`	Yes
`players`	Yes
`season_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish a safe read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, notably 'Does not use request quota' and the fact that pay comes from salary tables, plus guidance to ask the user when matches are ambiguous. It still does not describe output shape in detail, but an output schema exists.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence appears to serve a function: required inputs, ambiguity handling, calculator handoff, and quota behavior. It is dense but not padded, though it reads as a single compact paragraph rather than clearly separated guidance.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only listing tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, required inputs, ambiguity resolution, downstream calculator usage, and quota behavior. The main missing piece is parameter format guidance, which matters because schema description coverage is 0%.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the three parameters. It only restates that league, team, and season_id are required and gives the loose phrase 'one team and season'; it does not clarify expected formats for league, team, or season_id, nor how to choose values.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'List player ids and pay for one team and season from the salary tables.' That is clear enough to distinguish this as a roster/pay lookup rather than a tax calculation. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it should be preferred over, such as the calculator or equivalent-salary tools.

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 explains the required inputs, how to resolve ambiguous or empty name matches by asking the user, and how to feed results into the calculator's one-amount or Salary + Bonuses fields. That is strong usage context, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_tax_calculator_inputs or get_profile.

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

All Jock Taxes Developer MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?