Token Bowl MCP Server

search_players_by_name

Search fantasy football players by name to retrieve unified Sleeper and Fantasy Nerds data, including ADP, injuries, and projections.

Instructions

Search for players by name with unified Sleeper + Fantasy Nerds data.

Args: name: Player name to search for (minimum 2 characters). Will be converted to string and trimmed.

      Format examples:
      - Last name only: "mahomes", "jefferson", "hill"
      - First name only: "patrick", "justin", "tyreek"
      - Full name: "patrick mahomes", "justin jefferson"
      - Partial name: "dav" (matches Davante, David, etc.)

      Notes:
      - Case-insensitive matching
      - Spaces are optional: "patrickMahomes" works
      - Partial matches supported: "jeff" finds Jefferson
      - Returns top 10 matches sorted by relevance

Returns matching players with:

Basic info (name, team, position, age, status)
Sleeper ID for roster operations
Fantasy Nerds enrichment (ADP, injuries, projections when available)
Search results sorted by Sleeper search rank

Returns: List of player dictionaries with unified data (max 10 results)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fills it: case-insensitive matching, minimum length, trimming, flexible spacing, partial-match behavior, max 10 results, and relevance sorting are all stated. It omits any auth, rate-limit, or failure-mode context, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Well front-loaded with examples that earn their place, but there is redundancy between the 'Format examples' notes and the 'Notes' block (partial matching is explained twice) and between the two 'Returns' sections. Slight trimming would improve it.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter search tool, the description covers input format, matching behavior, result count, ordering, and the shape of returned records, despite an output schema already existing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% (the single 'name' property has no schema description), so the description must compensate and does: minimum 2 characters, string conversion/trimming, case-insensitivity, optional spaces, partial matching, and four concrete format examples. This is exactly the type of semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb ('search') and resource ('players by name') and names the unified data sources (Sleeper + Fantasy Nerds), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like get_player_by_sleeper_id or the generic 'search', leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

The description makes clear when the tool is applicable (you have a name, not an ID) but never states when-not to use it or names an alternative lookup. Usage is implied rather than routed, so it lands at the minimum-viable level.

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

Deploy Server