proplab_search_playersSearch NBA and WNBA players by name to retrieve their ID, full name, team, and position for use in player research and pick evaluation.
Search for NBA/WNBA players by name. Returns player ID, full name, team, and position. Use the returned ID with proplab_player_research or proplab_evaluate_pick.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Player name or partial name, e.g. 'LeBron' or 'Gilgeous' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: the exact set of returned fields (player ID, full name, team, position), which matters since there is no output schema. It omits match semantics (partial vs exact, ranking, result limits).
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 what it does, then returns, then the chaining instruction. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it closes the loop with the downstream tools that consume the ID. For a single-parameter lookup tool with full annotation coverage, 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself supplies the example ('LeBron' or 'Gilgeous'), so the parameter is fully documented in structured data. The description adds no syntax, matching, or length guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (Search) and resource (NBA/WNBA players) with the matching key (by name), and differentiates itself from siblings by naming the two tools that consume its output. An agent can identify this as the entry-point lookup tool without opening any schema.
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?
Gives clear forward guidance: use the returned ID with proplab_player_research or proplab_evaluate_pick, which tells the agent this is a prerequisite lookup rather than a terminal call. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you already have an ID), but the intended context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.