Fetch your Sleeper fantasy football watchlist using a required token. Track watched players to inform lineup, waiver, and trade moves.
Your Sleeper watchlist. Needs a token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the auth prerequisite ('Needs a token'), but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whose watchlist is returned, or what happens if no token is configured — gaps an agent would want covered for an unannotated tool.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the prerequisite — no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 read tool with an output schema (which already documents the return shape), the description covers the essentials: what it returns and that a token is required. The missing piece is any relation to watch_player, which would help routing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The 'Needs a token' note correctly implies auth is ambient rather than a call argument.
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 the resource precisely — the user's Sleeper watchlist — so an agent knows this is a retrieval of already-watched players. It does not name the sibling watch_player (which presumably adds to the list), so the boundary between reading and modifying the watchlist is left to inference.
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 explicit alternative named. The only contextual hint is the prerequisite 'Needs a token,' which is a precondition rather than a usage rule, and it never contrasts with watch_player or the other 30+ siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.