search_playersSearch for cricket players by name. Returns player IDs, names, and country. Use this to look up a cricketer before fetching more detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0). | |
| search | Yes | Player name to search for, e.g. "Kohli", "Root". | |
| _apiKey | No | Optional — your own CricAPI key for higher limits; omit to use the shared Pipeworx key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-cricket-api-key",
+ "search": "Kohli"
+ },
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-cricket-api-key",
+ "offset": 0,
+ "search": "Root"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds minimal behavior (what is returned), which is consistent. For a read-only search, this is adequate but not exceptional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words or extraneous information. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description usefully lists return fields. It also implies pagination via offset. For a simple search tool with 3 parameters, this is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters (search, offset, _apiKey).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Search', resource 'cricket players', and scope 'by name'. It specifies output fields (player IDs, names, country), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'entity_profile' by defining its specific search-and-return purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using this tool 'before fetching more detail', providing usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternatives explicitly, leaving room for slight ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.