List all teams in a specified league season and return their teamId values for use with team-match and head-to-head endpoints.
List teams in a league season. Returns the full team list for one discovered league shortcut and season. Use the returned teamId values with the team-match and head-to-head endpoints.
| 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (full team list keyed by `teamId`) and that the call is scoped to a single league/season, but says nothing about error behavior for an invalid shortcut, result size, or whether the season must be one where the league actually ran.
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 core action, then the return value, then the downstream chaining hint. No filler and nothing 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?
With only two required params, no output schema, and no annotations, an agent needs to know what it gets back and how to use it — the description covers the full team list, the `teamId` field, and the follow-up endpoints. Nothing essential is missing for a simple read operation.
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%: `league_shortcut` already documents "Exact shortcut from openligadb-leagues" and `season` documents "Season starting year." The description's "one discovered league shortcut and season" reinforces the two-param model but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema. 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?
States a specific verb and resource with scope: "List teams in a league season," and clarifies it returns the full team list for exactly one league+season combination. This distinguishes it from openligadb_leagues (the discovery tool) and from match-oriented siblings like openligadb_league_team_matches, though it doesn't name those siblings directly.
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?
Establishes the prerequisite chain implicitly ("one discovered league shortcut") and explicitly routes downstream usage: the returned `teamId` values feed the team-match and head-to-head endpoints. It lacks an explicit "don't use this if you already have a teamId" exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.