GridIron Data

Player history vs an opponent

get_matchups

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns a player's past games and fantasy points against one opponent. Use it for matchup questions like "how does he do against KC?". Basic plan and above.

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": {
      "player_id": "<player_id>",
      "opponent": "<opponent>"
    },
    "name": "get_matchups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`opponent`	Yes	Opponent team code, e.g. KC. LA/LAR, WSH/WAS and JAC/JAX are interchangeable.
`player_id`	Yes	GridIron player id, "First Last#POS", matched case-insensitively. Defenses are "Team Name#DST". Unsure of the id? Call search_players first.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A sentence for the user saying which plan is needed.
`team`	No	Current team code.
`error`	No	Present only when the call failed: what went wrong.
`stats`	No	His games and fantasy points against that opponent.
`reason`	No	Machine-readable failure reason, e.g. basic_required or pro_required.
`status`	No	HTTP status of the failed API call.
`opponent`	No	Opponent team code.
`position`	No	Position.
`player_id`	No	GridIron player id ("First Last#POS").
`player_name`	No	Player name.
`upgrade_url`	No	Where to see the plans.
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the subscription gate ('Basic plan and above'), which is not encoded anywhere in 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return scope, followed by the usage example and the plan note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameters are fully documented, so the remaining burden is small. It could still say how many past games are returned or whether results are season-limited, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 the schema already documents the player_id format, the search_players fallback, and opponent code equivalences. The description adds only the notion of a single opponent, which the schema's singular 'opponent' field already conveys.

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 names a specific verb and resource plus its scoping constraint: a player's past games and fantasy points against a single opponent. That scope cleanly separates it from broader stat tools, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use cue with a worked example ('how does he do against KC?') and a plan-tier requirement, but offers no exclusions or named alternatives for broader stat needs.

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?