Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Morris Golf

by golf.morris
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get hole heatmap

get_hole_heatmap
Read-onlyIdempotent

Mapa del campo: dónde caen las salidas y los golpes al green de los demás jugadores de Badgie y Morris en cada hoyo, dónde fallan (izquierda, derecha, corto, largo) y cuántos golpes les cuesta cada zona, al lado de sus propios golpes ganados en ese hoyo. Úsala al preparar un campo antes de la vuelta, o cuando pregunte cómo se juega un hoyo o dónde se pierden golpes en él. Sin hole da el resumen del campo; sin course_id usa su campo habitual. Para sus propios datos hoyo a hoyo es get_course_intel.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_hole_heatmap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
holeNoUn hoyo concreto; sin él, todos los del campo.
layoutNoEl recorrido, en campos con varios (layouts de la respuesta).
course_idNoEl campo (course_id de get_course_profile o get_round_history). Su campo habitual si no se indica.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely behavioral context beyond that: the dataset is about other players, not the caller, and omitting hole returns a course-wide summary while omitting course_id falls back to the user's usual course. It does not describe the shape of the returned heatmap, but with a closed-world read tool that is a minor gap.

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?

Every sentence carries information: purpose/data source, usage moments, defaults, and the sibling alternative. The opening sentence is long and clause-heavy, which slightly hurts front-loading, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does: landing distributions, miss quadrants, strokes lost per zone, and a comparison against the user's own strokes gained. For a three-optional-parameter read tool that is close to sufficient; only the granularity/format of the returned map is left implicit.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including defaults and UUID sourcing. The description reinforces the semantics of an absent hole (field summary) and absent course_id (usual course), but adds nothing about layout, which is handled entirely by the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a concrete verb-plus-resource: a field map showing where shots land and approach shots finish for other players (Badgie and Morris), their miss directions (left, right, short, long), and the stroke cost of each zone, compared against the user's own strokes gained on that hole. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_course_intel (that tool is for the user's own hole-by-hole data), so the agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names concrete usage moments (course prep before a round, questions about how a hole plays, questions about where strokes are lost on a hole) and steers to get_course_intel when the user wants their own hole-level data. It also states the default behavior for both optional parameters, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All Morris Golf toolsInspect
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