SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

ESPN NHL scoreboard for one date: every game with home

dev_espn_nhl_scoreboard

Read-only

ESPN NHL 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. Usually takes about 16 s, up to 30 s on slower calls; allow a 45 s timeout. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_espn_nfl_scoreboard when you need ESPN NFL scoreboard for one date: every game with home; dev_espn_mlb_scoreboard when you need ESPN MLB 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_nhl_scoreboard"
  }
}

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare read-only and open-world; the description adds materially more: UTC timestamps, empty list on days with no games, a ~16 s typical / 30 s worst-case latency and a recommended 45 s timeout, plus the $0.002 x402 price and the fact that failed calls are not charged. That cost-and-latency disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with scope and payload, then behavior, then alternates and price — a sensible order with no filler sentences. Minor deduction for the sibling clauses that read as truncated boilerplate ('every game with home', 'every game with away') and add noise rather than 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only fetch with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call correctly: date semantics, empty results, timeouts, and payment terms. Nothing material 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 'date' format and the yesterday-UTC default, so the description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond it. With a single fully documented parameter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('ESPN NHL scoreboard for one date') and enumerates the payload (home/away team, score, status, stadium), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also names the NFL and MLB scoreboard siblings, making disambiguation immediate.

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?

The 'Related tools ... for a different need' sentence gives explicit alternatives keyed to league, which is the main routing decision here. It does not cover when to avoid this tool in favor of a season-stats sibling (e.g., dev_nhl or dev_hockey_reference), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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?