search_playersSearch TheSportsDB for players by name. Returns player id, current team, nationality, position, and description. Use search_teams first to find team IDs if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "Cristiano Ronaldo"
+ },
+ {
+ "query": "LeBron James"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from TheSportsDB player search endpoint",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns specific fields (id, current team, etc.), which is useful but not critical given the 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?
Two sentences with no waste. First sentence states purpose and return, second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and 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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential: what it searches, what returns, and when to use a sibling. Could mention pagination or match behavior, but overall adequate.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It does so by indicating the 'query' parameter is a player name, adding the semantic connection that the schema alone lacks.
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 searches for players by name, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_teams and get_player by specifying it's a search by name.
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?
Provides explicit guidance to use search_teams first if team IDs are needed, implying context for usage. Lacks explicit alternative comparisons but gives reasonable usage context for a simple search tool.
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.