Fetch ICC team and player rankings from Cricinfo by providing a canonical rankings URL. Returns structured JSON data for rankings pages.
Get ICC rankings from Cricinfo. Returns ICC rankings (team or player) from a Cricinfo rankings page. url must be a canonical https://www.cricinfo.com/rankings/... URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Cricinfo rankings URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the URL requirement but does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the URL is invalid, whether it parses the page, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about side effects or prerequisites beyond the URL format.
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 wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by the critical URL constraint. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The description explains what the tool does and the URL format, but does not describe the return format (e.g., what data structure the rankings are returned in, whether it returns a list or a single ranking, or how team vs player is distinguished). With no output schema, this information is missing. However, for a simple fetch tool, it may be acceptable, but it could be more complete.
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 schema description for 'url' is generic ('Canonical Cricinfo rankings URL'), but the tool description adds a specific pattern ('https://www.cricinfo.com/rankings/...'). This adds meaningful constraint beyond the schema, helping the agent construct a valid URL. With 100% schema coverage, this is above the baseline 3.
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 states a specific action ('Get ICC rankings') and resource (Cricinfo rankings page), and specifies it returns team or player rankings. It clearly differentiates from other cricinfo tools like match or series by focusing on rankings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, though none directly compete, so it's clear but not perfect.
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 description gives a usage constraint (must be a canonical https://www.cricinfo.com/rankings/... URL) but does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives. Since there are no other cricinfo ranking tools in the sibling list, it's not critical, but the lack of when/when-not guidance leaves some ambiguity for agents that might confuse it with other cricinfo page-fetching tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.