How a batter gets out, or how a bowler takes wickets, across the ball-by-ball archive: bowled, caught, lbw, stumped, run out and the rest, with counts and shares. Run outs are excluded from the bowling view because they are not credited to the bowler.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| player | Yes | player name, e.g. 'V Kohli' | |
| perspective | No | 'batting' (default) for how they get out, 'bowling' for how they take wickets |
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 destructive false, so no contradiction. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: run outs are excluded from bowling because they are not credited to the bowler, and results are aggregated counts/shares across the ball-by-ball archive. This is useful beyond the annotated metadata.
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 compact sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about run-outs is placed meaningfully. Every sentence contributes to selection and invocation correctness.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a complete picture: what data is returned, what the two perspectives are, and a key exception. An agent has enough to decide whether this tool fits and to call it without surprises.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic depth by explaining what each perspective means ('how they get out' vs 'how they take wickets') and clarifies an important detail about run outs in the bowling perspective. This enriches the interpretation of the 'perspective' parameter.
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's resource and purpose: how a batter gets out or how a bowler takes wickets, with specific dismissal types and output of counts and shares. It distinguishes the batting and bowling perspectives, making it easy to differentiate from sibling cricket tools.
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?
It provides clear contextual guidance by explaining the two possible perspectives (batting vs bowling) and the meaning of each. It clearly notes that run outs are excluded from the bowling view, which is essential for correct interpretation. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context is strong enough for its niche.
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.