Retrieve the complete Yahoo Sports golf player directory, including current and retired golfers grouped by last-name initial.
Yahoo Sports golf player directory. Returns Yahoo's full current-and-retired golfers directory, grouped by last-name initial. The site's A-Z buttons filter the already-loaded list in the browser, so this endpoint returns the complete source list.
| 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 carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the response is the complete source list, not a filtered or paginated subset. That pre-empts an agent's likely assumption that an initial must be supplied. It says nothing about rate limits or response size, but for a zero-parameter directory read this is solid disclosure.
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 resource and scope, and the A-Z explanation earns its place by preventing a wrong assumption. There is mild redundancy between 'full current-and-retired golfers directory' and 'returns the complete source list', which keeps it from a 5.
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-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, it covers what comes back (a full directory of current and retired golfers, grouped by last-name initial) and why filtering is unnecessary. It does not describe what fields a player entry contains, which is the only meaningful gap.
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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.
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: it returns Yahoo's full current-and-retired golfers directory. It also states the grouping (by last-name initial), which differentiates it in spirit from single-player siblings like yahoo_sports_golf_player, though no sibling is named 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?
It clarifies a real usage question up front: the site's A-Z buttons only filter an already-loaded list, so this endpoint returns everything and no letter-scoping argument is needed. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over yahoo_sports_golf_player or yahoo_sports_player_search, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.