Retrieve weekly ESPN Fantasy Football matchups with team scores and projected points. Specify a week or use the current week to compare head-to-head results.
Get all matchups for a given week with scores and projections.
Args: week: Week number. Defaults to the current week.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (scores and projections) and the week-defaulting behavior, but says nothing about scope (whole league?), permissions, or pagination. It is a read-style list so the risk is low, but disclosure is thin.
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?
Two short lines, purpose front-loaded ahead of the parameter note, with no filler. The 'Args:' block is slightly mechanical for a single optional parameter but not wasteful.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with one optional parameter and no nested structure the description covers what an agent needs to call it. The main missing piece is sibling differentiation, which is a routing rather than an invocation gap.
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 0%, so the description must document the single parameter, and it does: 'week' is a week number and defaults to the current week. That adds the default semantics the schema's bare anyOf/null does not convey, though it gives no valid range or format.
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+resource (get all matchups) and adds the payload contents (scores and projections), which helps an agent distinguish it from a bare scoreboard call. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_scoreboard or get_head_to_head, which sound closely related.
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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With 20 sibling tools, several of which (get_scoreboard, get_head_to_head, get_standings) overlap semantically with 'matchups', the description offers no routing signal for choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.