Read a Sportskeeda player or team profile's facts and news cards using its path slug discovered from taxonomy search or sitemaps, including sport-specific paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that input is a path slug (not an internal ID) and that sport-specific paths exist, which is useful but modest additional context; no rate limits or failure modes are described.
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 dense sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It packs purpose, input source and input format efficiently, though the dual clauses make it slightly run-on.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-required-param read tool, the description covers purpose, input source and format adequately, though it could note the sport-specific path variations more concretely.
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 0%, so the description must carry the slug semantics. It does so well, explaining the value is a 'path slug discovered from taxonomy search or sitemaps, including sport-specific paths,' clarifying both the source and accepted format beyond the bare 'string' type.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Sportskeeda player or team profile's facts and news cards'), making it distinguishable from sibling article/topic tools. It is clear about what content is returned but does not explicitly contrast itself against adjacent siblings like sportskeeda_topic or sportskeeda_article.
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 tells the agent that the required slug comes 'from taxonomy search or sitemaps,' effectively routing to the prerequisite sibling tools. It lacks a direct when-to-use/when-not statement, but the discovery path is a strong practical constraint.
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.
