get_championsEvery current champion across the promotions the API covers, with the division and the snapshot date the board was published. Pass org (e.g. "ufc") and/or division (e.g. "lightweight") to narrow it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | Promotion slug, e.g. "ufc". Omit for every covered promotion. | |
| division | No | One division, e.g. "lightweight" or "womens-strawweight". Omit for every division. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / divisionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "One division, e.g. \"lightweight\" or \"womens-strawweight\". Omit for every division.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / orgAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Promotion slug, e.g. \"ufc\". Omit for every covered promotion.",
+ "enum": [
+ "ufc",
+ "pfl",
+ "oktagon",
+ "bkfc",
+ "rizin"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the response includes the division and the snapshot date the board was published, and that omitting filters returns all promotions. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, giving an agent a clearer expectation of the output—though it does not cover pagination or error behavior.
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?
Two sentences, no redundant words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise parameter note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It states what data is returned (champions, division, snapshot date) and how to filter. It does not mention pagination, limits, or error cases, but for this scope those are minor omissions. The lack of an output schema makes the return description valuable, and it is present.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances the parameters by providing concrete examples ('ufc', 'lightweight') and clarifying the optionality and 'and/or' combination logic. It also explains the effect of omitting filters ('narrow it'), which is not explicitly stated in the schema descriptions. This adds value beyond the schema.
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 states exactly what the tool returns: 'Every current champion across the promotions the API covers, with the division and the snapshot date the board was published.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_rankings or get_division, which cover different data.
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 provides parameter usage guidance ('Pass org ... and/or division ... to narrow it') but never explains when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling like get_rankings or get_division. The usage context is implied by the tool name, but explicit guidance is absent.
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.