Token Bowl MCP Server

get_waiver_wire_players

Find NFL free agents not on any Token Bowl roster by filtering all available waiver wire players by position, name, and limit.

Instructions

Get NFL players available on the waiver wire (not on any team roster).

This tool identifies free agents by comparing all NFL players against currently rostered players in the Token Bowl league.

Args: position: Filter by position. Valid values: QB, RB, WR, TE, DEF, K. Case-insensitive (will be uppercased). None returns all positions.

search_term: Search for players by name (case-insensitive).
            Partial matches are supported.

limit: Maximum number of players to return (default: 50, max: 200).
      Can be integer or string (will be converted).
      Players are sorted by relevance (active players first).

include_stats: Include full stats and projections (default: False, minimal data).

highlight_recent_drops: Mark players dropped in last 7 days (default: True).

verify_availability: Double-check roster status (default: True).

Returns waiver wire data including:

Total available players count
Filtered results based on criteria
Player details (name, position, team, status)
Projected points (if available)
Trending add counts from last 24 hours (always included)
Recently dropped players marked (if highlight_recent_drops=True)
Cache freshness information

Note: Cache refreshes daily. Recent adds/drops may not be reflected immediately in player details, but roster data is fetched live.

Returns: Dict with available players and metadata

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`position`	No
`search_term`	No
`include_stats`	No
`verify_availability`	No
`highlight_recent_drops`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does add real value: it discloses that cache refreshes daily, that recent adds/drops may be stale in player details but roster data is fetched live, and it gives defaults for filter flags. It omits any auth/permission notes, keeping it just short of the top.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and well-organized with an Args block, but the return information is stated twice — once as a bulleted list and again as 'Returns: Dict with available players and metadata' — which is mild redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All six parameters are documented and caching behavior is covered, which is the important missing piece given 0% schema coverage. Since an output schema already exists, the lengthy return-value bullets are somewhat redundant, but the definition is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates: it enumerates valid position values (QB/RB/WR/TE/DEF/K), notes case-insensitivity, explains search_term partial matching, and gives limit default/max and the meaning of each boolean flag.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Get NFL players available on the waiver wire') and even explains the mechanism (comparing all players against rostered players). It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_players_by_name or get_trending_players, but it never names an alternative explicitly for routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the purpose — an agent can infer this is for finding free-agent pickups — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to nearby tools such as get_waiver_analysis or get_trending_players.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server