Skip to main content
Glama

Vosters Rosters

Resolve a football program

resolve_football_team
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a football program by id, exact name, or fuzzy name.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_football_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that matching may be fuzzy, but stays silent on what happens with no match, multiple ambiguous matches, or how results are ordered/limited.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key information front-loaded and no waste. It is arguably over-lean for a resolver with two parameters, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a fuzzy resolver over a crowded sibling namespace, the definition omits fallback behavior, ambiguity handling, and the role of `limit`, leaving meaningful gaps for the agent to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must carry the weight: it does clarify that `query` accepts an id, exact name, or fuzzy name, which is genuine added meaning. The `limit` parameter (default 10) is never explained, leaving the multi-result/truncation behavior undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (football program) plus the accepted identifier forms (id, exact name, fuzzy name). It does not differentiate from near-siblings such as resolve_team, get_football_team, or search_football_teams, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to pick.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The mention of exact vs fuzzy name hints at input strategy but gives no rule for choosing this tool over search_football_teams or resolve_team, which is a real ambiguity given the sibling list.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources