baseball-stats-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Season leaderboard

baseball_leaderboard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank baseball players by computed sabermetric metrics like FIP, K-BB%, and ISO, including stats not published by the source, for hitting and pitching leaderboards.

Instructions

Rank players by any computed metric, including ones the source does not publish (FIP, K-BB%, LOB%, ISO...).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team`	No	Only players whose team contains this text.
`group`	No	'hitting' or 'pitching'.	hitting
`limit`	No	Rows to return.
`format`	No	'markdown' (default) or 'json'.	markdown
`league`	No	Which league's data to use.	MLB
`min_ip`	No	Extra minimum IP filter (pitching).
`min_pa`	No	Extra minimum PA filter (hitting).
`season`	No	Season year. Default: current MLB season / latest KBO file.
`sort_by`	Yes	Metric to rank by. Hitting: ops, obp, slg, avg, iso, babip, bb_pct, k_pct, bb_k, hr, hr_pct, sb, pa. Pitching: fip, era, era_minus_fip, whip, k_pct, bb_pct, k_minus_bb_pct, k9, bb9, hr9, babip, lob_pct, ip, so.
`ascending`	No	Override sort direction. Default: best first (low ERA/FIP/WHIP, high OPS...).
`qualified`	No	Only rate-qualified players (3.1 PA / 1.0 IP per team game).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: it computes metrics the source does not publish (FIP, K-BB%, LOB%, ISO), implying derived/calculated output rather than raw retrieval. It says nothing about caching, data freshness, or league-specific caveats.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The differentiating capability (computed metrics) is placed prominently rather than buried.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description does not need to explain return values or defaults. It adequately frames the tool's core behavior, though it omits that league/season/qualification scope is configurable, which the schema silently handles.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters including sort_by enums, defaults, and qualification rules. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (rank), resource (players), and mechanism (any computed metric, including derived stats the source doesn't publish). This clearly separates it from siblings like baseball_player_stats or mlb_standings, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as baseball_player_stats for a single player. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Rank'.

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

Deploy Server