get_playerFull player profile from TheSportsDB by numeric player_id — returns name, team, nationality, position, birth date, description, and thumbnail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| player_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "player_id": "34146"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from TheSportsDB player lookup endpoint",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the profile is 'full' and lists return fields but does not provide additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, caching, error behavior). It conforms to annotations without contradiction.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key identifier. Every word is necessary, and no information is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the essential return fields and the input format. While it omits potential error cases or alternative usage, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward lookup tool.
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?
The single parameter player_id is described as 'numeric' despite the schema typing it as a string. This adds meaningful constraint beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. The description helps agents understand the required format.
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?
The description clearly states it retrieves a 'Full player profile' using a 'numeric player_id' and lists the returned fields (name, team, nationality, position, birth date, description, thumbnail). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_players (search by name) or get_team.
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?
The description implies usage by providing the player_id, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_players, entity_profile). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the context from the description alone.
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.