Retrieve the current club of a player using their player ID or name.
Get a player's current club.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "le_get_player_club"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| player | No | Player name (if ID not provided). | |
| playerid | No | Player ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.29Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but fails to do so. It does not specify what is returned (e.g., club name, ID), error handling, or side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or behavior beyond a read operation.
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?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it could be expanded to include context about return values or usage without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool has no output schema and the description is minimal. It does not explain what information is returned (e.g., club name, ID, league), leaving the agent uncertain about the response format. More context is needed for a simple retrieval tool.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (player name, player ID), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves a player's current club, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like le_get_player_stats, which also retrieve player data, but the core purpose is clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as le_search_players or le_get_player_stats. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without direction for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.