SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

ESPN standings for NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL, by conference

dev_espn_standings

Read-only

ESPN standings for NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL, by conference or division group as ESPN lists them: team, wins, losses, win percentage, games behind and streak, from ESPN's public standings JSON. Current season as ESPN serves it. 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_standings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`league`	No	nba (default), nfl, mlb or nhl

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`count`	No
`groups`	No
`league`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond them: 'Current season as ESPN serves it' (there is no season parameter, so this discloses that newer/older seasons are not selectable) and the per-call pricing with the 'failed calls are not charged' clause. It stops short of discussing the upstream source's reliability, caching, or freshness lag, which matters for a live external feed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded and the field enumeration is efficient, but the return-field list duplicates what the output schema already provides, and the sibling sentences are truncated fragments ('every game with away;') that read as boilerplate. The payment clause is longer than it needs to be for a $0.002 fixed-price tool.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers scope, grouping, season semantics, cost, and alternative routing. The only meaningful gap is that it does not say what grouping shape the response takes (one entry per team vs. per conference group), which an agent may need when composing output.

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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains the league values and the default. The description repeats the league list and adds the notion of 'conference or division group as ESPN lists them', but that describes output grouping rather than adding meaning to the single input. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (ESPN standings) with the exact league scope (NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL) and grouping mode (conference or division group), plus the field set returned. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling scoreboard tools, which it names explicitly as a different need.

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?

Names two alternative tools and the condition that selects them ('when you need ESPN MLB/NBA scoreboard for one date'), which gives the agent a concrete routing rule. Coverage is partial — the other scoreboard and stats siblings are unaddressed — but the core when-to-use contrast (standings vs. per-date scores) is explicit.

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?