Skip to main content
Glama

flash-props-api

by io.github.iFan6oy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Rankings: top gaps, recent form, sample strength (tiered)

get_leaders
Read-onlyIdempotent

Ranked boards for a sport with a registered Flash pack. Read-only. No side effects. Tier-shaped exactly like REST: Free sees the top 3 teaser, Builder the top 10, and Pro the full board. metric=gap ranks Flash-vs-book gaps; metric=form ranks recent mean vs Flash Line; metric=sample ranks baseline size. Paywall metadata includes totalAvailable and the next unlock when rows are capped. No picks. Use list_sports to discover which sports have deep context. When to use: "where does Flash disagree most with the books", "biggest projection gaps", "who has the strongest sample". When not to use: one player is get_player_context; the posted board is scan_props; one prop end to end is get_prop_evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statNoRestrict the gap board to one market.
limitNoMax rows before tier shaping (default 20).
sportNoSport id with a registered Flash pack. Defaults to cod.
metricNogap (default), form, or sample.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Max rows (default 20)."New value: +"Max rows before tier shaping (default 20)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sport / description
      Previous value: -"Sport id with a Flash pack (cod, mlb). Defaults to cod."New value: +"Sport id with a registered Flash pack. Defaults to cod."
    • changedInput schema / properties / stat / description
      Previous value: -"Restrict the gap board to one market, e.g. \"kills_on_game_1\"."New value: +"Restrict the gap board to one market."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / sport
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Sport id with a Flash pack (cod, mlb). Defaults to cod.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral details: tier-based shaping (Free/Builder/Pro), paywall metadata with totalAvailable and next unlock, and the fact that rows are capped. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries weight: each metric is defined, tier behavior is specified, paywall metadata is mentioned, and sibling routing is included. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose, then details, then usage guidance.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is thorough. It covers tier behavior, metric semantics, paywall metadata, and when to use. Minor gaps: it doesn't specify the exact output format or the meaning of 'stat' parameter, but given the low complexity and no required parameters, this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, but the description adds critical value: it explains what the 'metric' enum values mean (gap ranks Flash-vs-book gaps, etc.) and clarifies that 'limit' is before tier shaping, adding context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns ranked boards for a sport, with three specific metrics (gap, form, sample) each defined precisely. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming get_player_context, scan_props, and get_prop_evidence as alternatives for different use cases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use examples ('where does Flash disagree most with the books', etc.) and explicit when-not-to-use cases with sibling tool names. Also instructs to use list_sports to discover eligible sports, giving clear guidance on prerequisites.

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

All flash-props-api 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