Retrieve Fanatics Live's league taxonomy, including Pokemon, NFL, and MTG, to get category names usable as league filters.
Get Fanatics Live's league taxonomy. Returns Fanatics Live's full league/category list (e.g. "Pokemon", "NFL", "MTG"). Each entry's type is usable directly with /fanaticslive/browse's league filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but this is a low-risk read-only taxonomy. It discloses the return shape (full list with a usable 'type' field) and gives examples, which is useful behavioral context, though it says nothing about ordering, caching, or auth expectations.
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return content, then integration hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 no-param, no-output-schema endpoint, the description supplies what an agent needs: the resource, the return content, and how the values feed into the browse filter. Minor gaps (pagination/ordering) are negligible for a static taxonomy list.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming no filtering is needed. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.
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 and resource ('Get Fanatics Live's league taxonomy') and clarifies the return ('full league/category list') with concrete examples (Pokemon, NFL, MTG). It also distinguishes itself from the consuming sibling fanaticslive_browse by explaining the relationship between the returned type values and browse's league filter.
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 implies the usage context clearly: the entries' type field is 'usable directly with /fanaticslive/browse's league filter', telling an agent to fetch this before filtering browse results. It stops short of an explicit 'use this tool when you need league identifiers' directive or naming alternatives, so it is clear context without formal when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.