Fantopy MCP Server

list_contests

Browse available fantasy football contests on Fantopy Arena. Filter by status to find open, live, completed, or draft contests for entry.

Instructions

List available fantasy football contests on Fantopy Arena

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_contests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of contests to return
`status`	No	Filter by contest status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List available' without clarifying what 'available' means (e.g., only status=open?), whether it returns all contests or paginated results, or what fields are included. The schema provides some parameter details but the description adds no behavioral context such as ordering, default filters, or read-only guarantee.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: verb, resource, and platform are all specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This simple list tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what is returned (e.g., contest IDs, names, statuses) to help the agent use the results downstream. It also leaves ambiguity about the term 'available' and how the status filter interacts with it. The absence of return-value information and usage guidance makes it incomplete.

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%: both 'limit' and 'status' have good descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema is self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('available fantasy football contests'), with a specific platform context ('Fantopy Arena'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like get_contest (which targets a single contest) and list_players (which lists players).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_contest should be used for a specific contest, nor does it explain any conditions or prerequisites for listing contests.

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

Deploy Server