Lists Sportskeeda player-guessing games, returning host-free page slugs for daily instance and entity endpoints. Use it to discover every linked game and build daily puzzle or player data requests.
List Sportskeeda player-guessing games. Discovers every currently linked player-guessing game and returns its host-free page slug for the daily instance and entity endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses scope ('every currently linked' game) and return shape (host-free page slug), which tells the agent it is a read/discovery operation, but it says nothing about coverage limits, pagination, auth, or whether the list is exhaustive vs. cached.
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 action and followed by the output/usage detail. No filler, though the second sentence is dense and could be split for readability.
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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned (slugs) and what they are for (daily instance and entity endpoints), which is the main thing an agent needs. It stops short of stating exhaustive coverage or failure 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for and it correctly does not invent parameter guidance.
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?
Names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Sportskeeda player-guessing games'), and the second sentence clarifies the output granularity (host-free page slug per game). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sportskeeda_guessing_game and sportskeeda_guessing_game_entities siblings by describing slug discovery, but never names them explicitly.
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 only implied: returning slugs 'for the daily instance and entity endpoints' hints this is a discovery/prerequisite call feeding the sibling endpoints, but there is no explicit 'use this when you need X, otherwise use Y' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.