Fetch the live NFL depth chart for every team, returning listed positions, players, and Sportskeeda slugs when available.
Get the NFL depth chart for all teams. Returns every team and listed position/player from the live NFL depth chart. Players and team detail pages include slugs when Sportskeeda links them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Must be nfl/depth-chart |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (every team, listed position/player, slugs on linked detail pages) and freshness ('live'), which is helpful for a tool lacking an output schema. It does not state read-only status, rate limits, or auth, but for a straightforward GET this partial disclosure is reasonable.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by useful return-shape detail. Efficient overall, though the clause about slugs on linked pages is fairly niche.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and return content sufficiently. The main gap is absence of usage guidance relative to sibling sportskeeda tools and any note on freshness/refresh behavior.
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% with a single enum param ('slug', must be nfl/depth-chart), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds nothing about the slug, leaving the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 ('Get the NFL depth chart for all teams') and clarifies scope (all teams, positions/players). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling sportskeeda tools like football_data or standings.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource name – fetch the NFL depth chart – but the description never states when to use this vs. siblings such as sportskeeda_football_data or sportskeeda_standings, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.