Get team identity, recent fixtures, results, and batting/bowling leaders by providing a Cricinfo team profile URL.
Get a Cricinfo team profile. Returns public team identity, profile text, recent fixtures and results, and the rolling batting and bowling leaders shown on a Cricinfo team page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Canonical Cricinfo team profile URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the output contents and notes 'public' data, suggesting a read-only operation. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid URLs, data freshness, or any limitations, though for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable but not exemplary.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then lists the returned data in a compact list. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it appropriately concise without sacrificing clarity.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what an agent can expect: the team identity, profile text, recent fixtures/results, and leaders. It does not mention how to find the URL or handle edge cases, but these are minor and outside the core scope for a retrieval tool.
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 covers the single parameter 'url' with a clear description ('Canonical Cricinfo team profile URL'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'Cricinfo team profile' and enumerates the exact content returned (identity, profile text, recent fixtures/results, rolling leaders). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cricinfo_team_schedule or cricinfo_teams, which focus on schedules or team lists.
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 purpose is clear and implies when to use it (when you need a team profile), but there is no explicit mention of alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain the URL), or conditions under which another tool would be more appropriate. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.