Get an MLB game box score by numeric game ID. Includes each player's position, batting order, batting, pitching, fielding stats, and team totals.
Get an MLB player boxscore. Returns the player box score for an MLB game by numeric id. For the home and away teams it lists each player used with position, batting order and batting, pitching and fielding stats, plus team totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric MLB game id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return contents in detail (per-player position, batting order, batting/pitching/fielding stats, team totals), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or data freshness, so the disclosure is partial.
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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return-content detail. There is minor redundancy between 'MLB player boxscore' and 'MLB game box score', but the text is efficient overall.
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 one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what is retrieved and the shape of the returned stats. The only meaningful gap is routing guidance against sibling tools, which is not strictly required to call it 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 single `id` parameter is documented as 'Numeric MLB game id'. The description repeats that it is a numeric game id but adds no new syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('MLB player boxscore') and defines the scope as a single game looked up by numeric id. An agent can understand the tool's function clearly, but the description never distinguishes it from close siblings like mlb_game or mlb_game_play_by_play, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The reader can infer it is used to fetch a game's boxscore, but the description names no sibling, no exclusions, and no preconditions (e.g. requires a valid game id from mlb_schedule/mlb_game).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.