Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Sports Probabilities MCP

by io.github.commodus67
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

League ranked by probability

get_league_probabilities

The whole league ordered by a probability instead of by points or record — who is most likely to win the title, reach the playoffs, take a wild card, or go down.

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": {
      "sport": "<sport>"
    },
    "name": "get_league_probabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many teams to return. Default 40.
orderNodescending (default) puts the most likely first; ascending is what you want for relegation.
sportYesnfl, mlb, nhl, nba or soccer.
leagueNoSoccer only. A league name or ESPN slug, for example "Premier League" or "esp.1". Ignored for every other sport.
metricNoWhat to rank by. NFL/MLB: playoff, division, wildCard, topSeed. NHL: the same plus bestRecord (Presidents Trophy). NBA: playoff, playIn, topSix, division, bestRecord, conferenceFinals, conference, title. Soccer: title, top4, qualify, playoff, relegation.
seasonNoNFL, MLB, NHL and NBA only. A past season year; for NHL and NBA, the year the season ends.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing behavioral: no read-only confirmation, no statement about result size or truncation, and no indication of what happens when a requested metric isn't valid for the chosen sport. Aside from the ranking concept, everything an agent must know lives in the schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no repetition of schema detail. It is slightly dense as a single em-dash construction, but every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a six-parameter tool whose valid metrics vary by sport and where league and season apply only to certain sports, the description gives only the high-level concept. There is no output schema, so a brief note on what a row contains (team plus probability) would close the remaining gap.

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% and the schema already documents limit, order, league scope, and the full sport-by-sport metric enums in more detail than the description. The description adds only the motivating context (title/playoff/wild card/relegation) and no syntax or default information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource ("the whole league") and the ordering principle ("ordered by a probability instead of by points or record"), plus the outcomes ranked (title, playoffs, wild card, relegation). It implicitly contrasts with a per-team view but never names a sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the "instead of by points or record" phrasing tells the agent this is the probability-ordering view, and one ordering tip ("ascending is what you want for relegation") is given. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_team_probabilities or get_probability_history, and no exclusions.

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

All Sports Probabilities MCP toolsInspect
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