College Football MCP

# Fix Summary: research-mcp Tool Name Confusion ## Issue User reported getting this response: > "I don't have a tool called 'research-mcp' available here. If you tell me the team or matchup, I can use my research_latest_score tool..." ## Root Cause 1. The LLM was confusing "research-mcp" (the backend service name) with the actual tool name `research_latest_score` 2. When research returned "no evidence found", the LLM interpreted this as "no access" rather than "search performed but no results" ## Fixes Applied ### 1. Tool Description Updates - Updated `research_latest_score` tool description to explicitly state it uses "research-mcp" backend - Added note that when users mention "research" or "research-mcp", this is the tool to use ### 2. Instructions Enhancement - Added explicit rule: When users mention "research-mcp" or "research", use `research_latest_score` tool - Added instruction: DO NOT say "I don't have access" - you DO have access via research_latest_score - Added rule: When research_latest_score returns results (even if "no evidence"), acknowledge research was performed ### 3. Response Formatting - Improved `research_latest_score` return format to make it clearer that research was completed - Added `research_completed: true` flag - Better handling of synthesis extraction (multiple fallback keys) - Clearer messaging when no results found vs when research failed ## Test Results - Tool is being called correctly (logs confirm `research_latest_score` is invoked) - Research-mcp backend is responding (HTTP 200) - LLM now understands that research_latest_score IS the research tool ## Status ✅ **Partially Fixed** - The system now: - ✅ Correctly recognizes when users mention "research-mcp" or "research" - ✅ Calls the `research_latest_score` tool appropriately (logs confirm) - ✅ Research-mcp backend is responding successfully (HTTP 200) - ⚠️ **Remaining Issue**: LLM sometimes still says "I can't access" even after research is performed - This appears to be LLM behavior when research returns "no evidence found" - The tool IS being called correctly (verified in logs) - Sometimes the LLM acknowledges research, sometimes it doesn't (inconsistent) ## Current Behavior - Tool calls: ✅ Working correctly - Research backend: ✅ Responding successfully - LLM acknowledgment: ⚠️ Inconsistent - sometimes acknowledges, sometimes says "no access" ## Recommendation The core functionality is working - research tool is being called when users mention "research-mcp". The inconsistent LLM responses about "access" appear to be a limitation of GPT-5's interpretation of research results that say "no evidence found". The system is functional and research IS being performed, even if the LLM's phrasing sometimes suggests otherwise.