List Cricinfo's grouped team directory with stable team identifiers and labels. Use cricinfo_team for one team's details or cricinfo_squads for the team's player roster.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 read-only, external-data nature is covered. The description adds that results carry 'stable team identifiers and labels', useful context about what the directory yields, but no further behavioral detail. A 3 is appropriate with annotations carrying the safety profile.
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 tightly written sentences with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool guidance.
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 described, and annotations cover safety. The description adequately explains what the tool returns and how it differs from siblings, though 'grouped' is not elaborated (grouped by what), leaving a minor gap.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters whose semantics the description would need to clarify, and the description correctly implies a no-argument full-directory listing.
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 (List) and resource (Cricinfo's grouped team directory) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings cricinfo_team and cricinfo_squads. An agent can identify its role without opening the schema.
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?
Names the two sibling alternatives and the conditions selecting them (one team's details vs. player roster), which clearly implies this tool is the directory/browse option. It lacks an explicit 'use this when you need to discover or resolve a team id' statement, but the routing intent is clear.
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.
