Fetch a Fanatics Live show's detail page by ID to view status, viewers, host channel/shop, active break/lot, and full break/lot list.
Get a Fanatics Live show's detail page. Returns a Fanatics Live live show's detail page: status, viewers, hosting channel/shop, its currently active break/lot, and its full break/lot list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Fanatics Live show id, e.g. from a browse result's id field |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns status, viewers, hosting channel/shop, active break/lot, and the full break/lot list, and 'Get' implies read-only behavior. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or other operational constraints.
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 two sentences and front-loads the purpose. The second sentence repeats 'detail page' and elaborates on returned fields, which is useful but slightly redundant.
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?
With one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It could be stronger with usage context relative to siblings, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that the id comes from a browse result's id field. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (Fanatics Live show's detail page), and it enumerates the key fields returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like fanaticslive_browse or fanaticslive_shop, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: you call it when you need a show's detail page by id. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.