Lists current OpenLigaDB sports with names and IDs so you can select a sport and inspect its league-season catalog via openligadb_leagues.
List OpenLigaDB sports. Returns OpenLigaDB's current sport directory. Use the returned sport names and ids with openligadb_leagues to inspect the complete league-season catalog; the source currently exposes 13 sports, including its Test category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (a sport directory with 13 sports, including a 'Test' category), which is useful, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or the exact response shape. Some behavioral context is given, but key operational details are missing.
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 usage hint. It is efficient, though the first two clauses ('List OpenLigaDB sports' and 'Returns OpenLigaDB's current sport directory') are slightly redundant.
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, zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly and understand what it returns. It gives the expected content (sport directory, 13 sports) and how to proceed with the results.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document in the schema. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose and how to use its output rather than redundant parameter details.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List OpenLigaDB sports') and immediately clarifies that it returns the current sport directory. It also names the sibling tool openligadb_leagues and how to combine them, making it easy to distinguish from other OpenLigaDB endpoints.
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?
It explicitly says to use the returned sport names and ids with openligadb_leagues, providing clear next-step guidance. It does not state when *not* to use the tool, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.