PokerData

Get opponent notes

get_opponent_notes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Leak notes computed from uploaded hands for one opponent, with the sample size on each line.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`opponent_id`	Yes	Opponent id from list_my_opponents.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Present instead of a payload when the request named something that does not exist. No figure is estimated in its place.
`notes`	No	Notes, or a single line saying the sample is too small.
`opponent_id`	No	Opponent id, echoed.
`display_name`	No	Screen name as written in the history.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / opponent_id / description
```
Added value: +"Opponent id from list_my_opponents."
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Leak notes computed from uploaded hands for one opponent.",
+  "properties": {
+    "display_name": {
+      "description": "Screen name as written in the history.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Present instead of a payload when the request named something that does not exist. No figure is estimated in its place.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "notes": {
+      "description": "Notes, or a single line saying the sample is too small.",
+      "items": {
+        "description": "One note, with the sample size it rests on.",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "opponent_id": {
+      "description": "Opponent id, echoed.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: notes are derived from uploaded hands, and every line carries its own sample size, which tells the agent how to interpret the output.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope ('one opponent') and the output characteristic ('sample size on each line') both land immediately.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description only needs to frame the tool's purpose, which it does. The implicit dependency on prior hand uploads is hinted at but not spelled out, leaving a small 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 there is only one parameter, whose schema description already routes to list_my_opponents. The description adds no further parameter detail, 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?

States a specific resource (leak notes) with its scope ('for one opponent') and origin ('computed from uploaded hands'), which is clear and distinct from the range/report siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any 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 phrase 'computed from uploaded hands' hints that hand histories must exist first, and the schema points to list_my_opponents for the id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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

All PokerData 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?