SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

ESPN college football scoreboard for one date: every game

dev_espn_college_football

Read-only

ESPN college football scoreboard for one date: every game with home and away team, score, status (scheduled, live, final) and stadium, from ESPN's public site JSON. Times are UTC; days with no games return an empty list. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_espn_mlb_scoreboard when you need ESPN MLB scoreboard for one date: every game with away; dev_espn_nba_scoreboard when you need ESPN NBA scoreboard for one date: every game with away. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": "dev_espn_college_football"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No	Date YYYY-MM-DD (default: yesterday UTC)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`count`	No
`games`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses the data source (ESPN public site JSON), that timestamps are UTC, that days without games yield an empty list, and the exact cost ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc) with failed calls not charged. That is real behavioral context an agent needs before calling a paid endpoint; only rate limits or caching behavior are unstated.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by field list, source, timezone, and pricing. The sibling-tool sentence is slightly repetitive and awkwardly truncated ('every game with away'), but overall the text is compact and each part carries information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary; the description complements it with source, timezone, empty-result semantics, and payment terms. For a one-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and understand the cost.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format and the yesterday-UTC default. The description reinforces the UTC convention and empty-result behavior but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('ESPN college football scoreboard for one date') and enumerates the payload fields (home/away team, score, status, stadium). It also names sibling tools for other leagues, so an agent can distinguish it from dev_espn_mlb_scoreboard and dev_espn_nba_scoreboard without opening a schema.

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?

It explicitly routes to sibling scoreboard tools 'for a different need' by sport, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of covering the closer alternatives on this server (dev_espn_sports, dev_espn_standings, dev_espn_soccer_scoreboard) or stating when not to use this tool for non-scoreboard questions.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?