get_teamFull team profile from TheSportsDB by numeric team_id — returns name, sport, country, stadium, formed year, description, badge, and social links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes | TheSportsDB team id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "team_id": "133602"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from TheSportsDB team lookup endpoint",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, ensuring safe read. Description adds value by listing the specific return fields (name, sport, country, etc.), providing behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and clear. No wasted words; every element earns its place.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It lists return fields, and the output schema handles the structure.
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 covers 100% of parameters with description 'TheSportsDB team id'. Description repeats this and adds 'numeric', but adds minimal new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 it retrieves a full team profile by numeric team_id and lists specific return fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_teams (which searches by name) and league_teams (gets teams in a league).
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?
Description implies usage when you have a numeric team_id. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools provides clarity. A brief note about alternatives would improve it.
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.