Skip to main content
Glama

Fantasy Football Draft Assistant

by com.predictionmarketspicks

Who Do I Draft?

who_do_i_draft
Read-only

Recommend the single best player to draft right now given the roster already on the user's team and their pick number, weighing positional need against the best value available (2026, any scoring format). The pick itself is always free, no key. One email adds alternatives; Pro adds the full reasoning. Prefer this mid-draft when the user asks "who should I take", "who do I draft", "what do I need". Input: roster (names on their team), pick_number, and optionally drafted (names already gone). Without drafted, the board is estimated from pick_number using consensus ADP. Returns one pick + a one-line reason.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamsNoLeague size (number of teams) for draft-round math. Overrides the platform default; falls back to 12.
rosterYesPlayer names already on the user's team.
draftedNoPlayer names already drafted by ANY team. Optional — without it the board is estimated from pick_number using consensus ADP. Supplying it is always more accurate.
scoringNoScoring format: standard, half_ppr (default), or ppr (full PPR). Overrides a platform preset. Works for Yahoo/ESPN/Sleeper defaults.
platformNoLeague platform — applies its default scoring, size, roster + best-ball settings (overridable by explicit scoring/teams). Underdog/DraftKings are best ball.
pick_numberYesThe overall pick number on the clock.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the pick is free and requires no key, optional drafted input changes behavior to ADP-based estimation, and output is exactly one pick plus a one-line reason. Tier differences (email alternatives, Pro reasoning) are also disclosed.

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?

Every sentence carries functional weight: purpose, usage trigger, input requirements, fallback behavior, output shape, and pricing/tier constraints. The 'Input:' section neatly organizes parameters without verbosity.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: required parameters, optional drafted behavior, output format, and usage timing. The schema already documents the remaining parameters, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of omitting drafted (board estimated from pick_number using ADP) and emphasizing that supplying drafted is always more accurate.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Recommend the single best player to draft right now', and ties it tightly to the required inputs (roster, pick_number). The scope 'single best' plus 'mid-draft' clearly separates it from broader analysis tools like draft_board or player_outlook.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this tool: mid-draft when the user asks 'who should I take', 'who do I draft', 'what do I need'. It doesn't name sibling tools or state when not to use it, which is the only gap.

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

All Fantasy Football Draft Assistant 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct jobs: rankings, comparisons, outlooks, and platform-specific ADP gaps are easy to separate. The main ambiguity is between best_available and who_do_i_draft, since their usage examples overlap heavily ('who should I take next' vs 'who should I take'), though the roster-input distinction helps.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are readable, but there is no consistent structural pattern: compare_players and explain_player are verb_noun, while draft_board, player_outlook, sleepers_and_busts, and adp_market_gaps are noun phrases, and who_do_i_draft is a full question. This is mixed but not chaotic.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a fantasy football draft assistant. Each tool covers a distinct draft-related need without feeling padded or redundant enough to trim.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the core draft workflow comprehensively: full rankings, player outlooks, ranking explanations, head-to-head comparisons, best-available picks, roster-aware recommendations, sleepers/busts, and cross-platform ADP gaps. No major dead-end or obvious missing operation stands out for the stated purpose.

Resources