Retrieve an MLB player's identity, biography, position, handedness, active status, and current team by numeric player ID.
Get an MLB player. Returns an MLB player's identity, biographical information, position, handedness, active status, and current team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric MLB player id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states what data is returned and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, data source, or whether it covers active/retired players. There is no explicit read-only declaration beyond the verb 'Get'.
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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a concise list of return fields. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the key return categories. It is reasonably complete but omits any mention of edge cases (e.g., invalid ID) or whether all historical players are included, which prevents a perfect score.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with its description 'Numeric MLB player id'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with the verb 'Get' and resource 'MLB player', distinctly listing the returned data (identity, bio, position, handedness, active status, current team). This separates it from siblings like mlb_player_stats and mlb_team_roster, which focus on stats and rosters respectively.
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 implied but not explicit. The description suggests this tool is for biographical/identity info, but it does not directly state when to prefer it over alternatives like mlb_player_stats or mlb_team_roster. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.