List all 30 MLB clubs for a given season, including league, division, venue, and abbreviation metadata.
List MLB teams. Returns the 30 MLB clubs for a season with league, division, venue, and abbreviation metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| season | No | Four-digit season; defaults to current year |
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 burden. It discloses the fixed result size (30 clubs) and the metadata fields included, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, whether historical seasons are supported, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, leaving some uncertainty.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List MLB teams' immediately conveys the action, followed by concise details on return content. Every word 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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and the season context. Minor gaps like exact output structure or historical data availability are not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, 'season', including its format and default. The description's phrase 'for a season' aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already defines the parameter well.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('MLB teams'), and clearly states the output: the 30 MLB clubs with league, division, venue, and abbreviation metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mlb_team_roster or mlb_standings, which serve different purposes.
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 use case: when you need a catalog of MLB teams for a season. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over related sibling tools (e.g., mlb_team_roster) or provide exclusions. The season context is clear, but alternatives are not discussed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.