list_sportsReturn all sports tracked by TheSportsDB (e.g. Soccer, Ice Hockey, Basketball), each with id, name, and forum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from TheSportsDB all sports endpoint",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific return fields (id, name, forum), which is useful but not extensive. No behavioral contradictions. Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes key details (examples, output fields). Every word earns its place; no fluff.
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 (no parameters, full annotation coverage, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, leaving no significant gaps.
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 tool has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds value by describing the output, but that is not parameter semantics.
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 the verb 'Return' and the resource 'all sports tracked by TheSportsDB', with examples (Soccer, Ice Hockey, Basketball) and specifies output fields (id, name, forum). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_leagues, which also lists entities but of a different type.
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 tool is simple and parameterless, so usage is obvious. The description gives clear context: it returns all sports. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate.
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.