Search NFL players by full or partial name and return IDs, positions, and teams to disambiguate results before querying stats.
Search for players by name. Returns ids, positions and teams to disambiguate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full or partial player name, e.g. 'Mahomes'. | |
| seasons | No | Seasons to include, e.g. [2024, 2025]. 1999 or later. Defaults to the current season. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns multiple candidate players (ids, positions, teams) for disambiguation, which usefully signals a possibly multi-result, ambiguity-resolving response. It says nothing about matching behavior (partial vs exact) beyond the schema's own note.
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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the resource and the name-based scope front-loaded ahead of the return-value note.
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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return shape, and annotations cover safety. What remains thin is workflow context — that this is the lookup to run before player_stats or situational_stats, and how to handle multiple returned candidates — but nothing essential for calling it 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%, with both the name (including a 'Mahomes' example) and seasons parameters fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by name' restates rather than extends this, and it contributes nothing on the seasons parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (players) with the key qualifier 'by name', which separates it cleanly from the stats-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling it displaces, so an agent must infer the handoff to player_stats on its own.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not clause appears; the usage is only implied by 'to disambiguate', which hints this is a resolution step before a stats call. The agent can reasonably infer the workflow, but nothing states it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.