Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ninjabeam20

SportIQ

by Ninjabeam20
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

cricket_captain_recommendation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the top three IPL captain candidates ranked by projected points from match ID or team/venue inputs; invalid or non-IPL venues return no ranking.

Instructions

Return the top-3 captain candidates ranked by projected points.

IPL venues only (pitch seed is IPL grounds). Test/international matches and unknown venues fail rather than inventing a ranking. Same-role players often tie: projections use default form 55 and default opposition 0.5, not per-player history.

Args: match_id: CricAPI match identifier; resolves team_a/team_b/venue automatically. team_a: First team code/name. Required if match_id is absent. team_b: Second team code/name. Required if match_id is absent. venue: Venue key/name (IPL ground, e.g. wankhede). Required if match_id is absent.

Returns: data.candidates: list of 3 dicts with name/role/team/projected_points. meta.source: model:captain_score. meta.estimated: true. meta.form_source: "default_neutral".

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
venueNoVenue key/name (IPL ground, e.g. ``wankhede``). Required if match_id is absent.
team_aNoFirst team code/name. Required if match_id is absent.
team_bNoSecond team code/name. Required if match_id is absent.
match_idNoCricAPI match identifier; resolves team_a/team_b/venue automatically.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
metaNo
errorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / venue / description
      Previous value: -"Venue key/name. Required if match_id is absent."New value: +"Venue key/name (IPL ground, e.g. ``wankhede``). Required if match_id is absent."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: only three candidates are returned, non-IPL venues fail instead of fabricating results, ties are common, and projections use default form 55 and opposition 0.5 rather than per-player history.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints, args, and returns. The Args section largely duplicates schema information, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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 read-only recommendation tool with an output schema, the description covers output shape, fallback behavior, venue limitations, tie caveats, and metadata sources. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 each parameter. The description largely repeats those parameter semantics, though it usefully reiterates that match_id resolves team_a/team_b/venue automatically.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and output: return the top-3 captain candidates ranked by projected points. The IPL-only scope and failure behavior make it distinguishable from broader team-building or pick tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly states when the tool applies (IPL venues) and when it does not (Test/international matches and unknown venues fail rather than inventing a ranking). It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as cricket_differential_picks or cricket_build_dream11_team.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools