Retrieve a player's Baseball Savant arm strength throw records for a chosen season or all years using an MLB player ID.
Get Baseball Savant player throw details. Returns the player's individual Arm Strength throw records for a verified season or all years.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Season or all years | |
| player_id | Yes | Positive MLB player id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' weakly implies a read operation, but there is no statement of permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens with the 9999 'all years' enum, leaving behavior largely undisclosed for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action before the return scope. 'Baseball Savant player throw details' is slightly redundant with the second sentence's 'Arm Strength throw records', preventing a perfect score.
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 2-parameter read tool it covers the what and the when-scope, but with no output schema the description should describe the returned record fields or at least the record shape, which it does only vaguely as 'individual Arm Strength throw records'.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The phrase 'verified season or all years' adds slight meaning by implying the year enum governs a season-vs-all-years choice, but player_id gets no added explanation.
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') plus resource ('Baseball Savant player throw details' / 'Arm Strength throw records') and scopes it to a player and season. It does not name or contrast with the obvious sibling mlb_statcast_arm_strength (the team/leaderboard variant), so an agent must infer the player-level distinction.
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 notes records can be scoped to 'a verified season or all years', which implies how the year param works, but it gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives like the team-level arm strength or arm value tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.