GridIron Data

Defense vs position (matchup strength)

get_defense_vs_position

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns what each NFL defense allows per game to QBs, RBs, WRs or TEs: fantasy points plus yards, TDs, receptions and targets, from ESPN box scores, ranked so rank 1 allows the most (the best matchup). Use it for matchup-based start/sit and streaming, optionally over the last N weeks. Pro plan (Free and Basic keys get 403 pro_required).

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_defense_vs_position"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`last`	No	Only the trailing N weeks with games, 1-18. Default: the whole season.
`team`	No	Only this defense. Team code, e.g. BUF or KC. LA/LAR, WSH/WAS and JAC/JAX are interchangeable.
`scoring`	No	Fantasy scoring: ppr (full PPR, the default), half (half-PPR) or standard.	ppr
`position`	No	QB, RB, WR or TE. Default: all four.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A sentence for the user saying which plan is needed.
`error`	No	Present only when the call failed: what went wrong.
`weeks`	No	Weeks included.
`reason`	No	Machine-readable failure reason, e.g. basic_required or pro_required.
`season`	No	Season.
`source`	No	Data source.
`status`	No	HTTP status of the failed API call.
`scoring`	No	Scoring used.
`defenses`	No	Per defense: fantasy points, yards, TDs, receptions and targets allowed per game, and rank.
`position`	No	Position asked for.
`updated_at`	No	When the data was last loaded.
`by_position`	No	Without position: QB, RB, WR and TE lists.
`upgrade_url`	No	Where to see the plans.
`rank_meaning`	No	rank 1 = allows the most (the best matchup).
`required_plan`	No	The plan that unlocks this data: basic or pro.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only establish that this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read; the description goes well beyond that. It discloses the ranking direction (rank 1 = most allowed = best matchup), the underlying data source, and an access constraint with the exact failure mode ('Free and Basic keys get 403 pro_required'), which an agent needs before committing to this call.

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?

The core definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage and the plan restriction following. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only mild cost is the long colon-and-list construction in the opening sentence, which reads as a run-on.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, source, ranking semantics, and the plan gate. The remaining gap is minor: it does not note that filtering by team collapses the result to a single defense, though the schema's team parameter description covers that.

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 four parameters (last, team, scoring, position) are already documented with defaults and examples in the schema. The description only echoes the 'last N weeks' behavior and the position set, adding no syntax or interpretation beyond what the structured fields already provide, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: per-game defensive allowances to QBs/RBs/WRs/TEs, including the exact metrics returned (fantasy points, yards, TDs, receptions, targets) and the data source (ESPN box scores). The inverted ranking convention ('rank 1 allows the most') further pins down what the output means, so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_player_stats or get_projections.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete use case ('matchup-based start/sit and streaming') and a scoping option ('optionally over the last N weeks'), which tells the agent the intended analytical context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not to use it, so there is no explicit routing to siblings such as get_matchups or get_projections.

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

All GridIron Data tools Inspect

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

Need Help?