Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Morris Golf

by golf.morris
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Suggest fantasy squad

suggest_fantasy_squad
Read-onlyIdempotent

«Morris, hazme el equipo»: 5 profesionales dentro del presupuesto, calculados en código (ranking Badgie, forma y si juegan esta semana), con un motivo por jugador; lineup son los 3 titulares (captain el primero) y bench las 2 reservas en orden. Explícalo en una frase con headliners y counts; no inventes motivos. Motivos: star (estrella, 12 M o más), in_form (en forma: juega por encima de su nivel de dos años), bargain (barato que juega esta semana), plays_this_week (juega esta semana), solid (fijo por ranking). keep: ids que el jugador quiere conservar; exclude: ids que no quiere.

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": "suggest_fantasy_squad"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keepNoProfessional ids the player wants to keep.
excludeNoProfessional ids the player does not want.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / exclude / description
      Added value: +"Professional ids the player does not want."
    • addedInput schema / properties / keep / description
      Added value: +"Professional ids the player wants to keep."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: the squad is computed deterministically in code rather than generated, the output layout is fixed (3 starters with captain first, then 2 reserves in order), and reasons are constrained so the agent must not invent them.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening use case is well front-loaded and the reason taxonomy is compact, but the text is a dense run-on that mixes three concerns (what it returns, how to phrase the answer, and a restatement of both parameters already documented in the schema). The closing parameter restatement is the least earned part.

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 describing the returned shape (lineup, captain ordering, bench order, per-player reason codes) is essential and is done well. Missing pieces are minor: no indication of budget boundaries as an input or failure mode, and no distinction from the sibling team tool.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry descriptions, so the baseline applies. The description restates keep as ids the player wants to conserve and exclude as ids they do not want, adding only the intent framing, and says nothing about the maxItems limits (5 and 50) or what happens when keep conflicts with budget.

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 states a specific action and resource: build a 5-player fantasy squad within budget, computed in code from Badgie ranking, form and weekly availability. It is clear what the tool produces (lineup of 3 with captain first, bench of 2). It never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling suggest_fantasy_team, which is the main clarity gap.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through the trigger phrase '«Morris, hazme el equipo»' and the instruction to explain results in one sentence, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing between this tool and suggest_fantasy_team. The agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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