List the sports LayUp covers with a count of slots available in the next 7 days. Useful as a quick overview before a more specific search.
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": "list_sports"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it returns a count of slots for the next 7 days and lists all sports covered. This context is not redundant with the annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it lists, the count, and the 7-day window. It could mention the return format more explicitly, but is sufficient for a simple overview tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.
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 clearly states the tool lists sports covered by LayUp with a count of slots in the next 7 days. It uses a specific verb (List), identifies the resource (sports), and includes a time-bound scope, distinguishing it from siblings like search_slots and get_venue.
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 explicitly positions it as a quick overview before a more specific search, giving contextual guidance on when to use it. It doesn't name the alternative tool explicitly, but the reference to 'more specific search' clearly points to siblings like search_slots.
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.