Retrieve canonical sport IDs and names for accurate reference in TheRundown API queries. Use this to confirm sport identifiers before requesting events or lines.
List current canonical sport IDs and names. Do not use a catalog row as evidence of current events, prices, or plan access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the rows are 'canonical' and must not be used as evidence of live prices, current events, or plan access. This gives an agent a useful behavioral constraint that annotations alone do not express.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by preventing a realistic misuse of the returned catalog data.
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?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description specifies the output contents and adds an important usage caveat. It does not describe pagination or response format, but the lack of parameters and the simplicity of the output make the description sufficiently complete.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially complete, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of 'current canonical sport IDs and names' clarifies exactly what the returned rows represent, which is sufficient for parameter-free operation.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and object: 'List current canonical sport IDs and names.' It clearly states both the action and the exact output content, making it obvious what this tool does and distinguishing it from sibling list tools that target different entities like markets, affiliates, or futures.
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?
The description provides a clear negative usage guideline: the returned catalog rows should not be treated as evidence of current events, prices, or plan access. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to choose this one over them, but the resource type (sports) and output scope are unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.