Retrieve a league season's goal-getter ranking by league shortcut and season starting year, using the source's own goal and result records.
List league season goal-getters. Returns the source's goal-getter ranking for one discovered league shortcut and season. The ranking uses the source's own goal and result records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| season | Yes | Season starting year | |
| league_shortcut | Yes | Exact shortcut from openligadb-leagues |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one meaningful detail: the ranking is computed from the source's own goal and result records, so figures are source-native rather than computed or normalized. It says nothing about read-only semantics, result size, ordering, or pagination, which limits how much an agent can anticipate.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is mild redundancy between "goal-getters" in sentence one and the "goal-getter ranking" restatement, but nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what is returned at a high level and where the data comes from, but leaves the agent guessing about the shape and size of the ranking entries and whether ordering is by goals. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 (season as starting year, league_shortcut as exact shortcut from the leagues tool) are already documented. The description restates the same constraint ("one discovered league shortcut and season") without adding format, validity, or edge-case detail, 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 names a specific verb and resource ("List league season goal-getters", "goal-getter ranking for one discovered league shortcut and season"), which is clearly distinct from sibling openligadb_table (standings) on the surface. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, keeping it just 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?
"One discovered league shortcut" implies the prerequisite that league_shortcut must first be obtained from openligadb_leagues, which is a useful usage hint. However, there are no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use rules and no named alternative (e.g., openligadb_table for standings), so guidance remains implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.