get_league_overviewRetrieve a league's name, competition, members, and settings to understand its structure and configuration for fantasy football management.
League overview: name, competition, members and settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| league_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Overview' implies read-only but never states it, and the description does not disclose what happens when league_id is omitted (default null), whether that resolves to the current league, or any error/permission behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are listed compactly. It is under-informative in places, but that is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.
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?
The output schema covers the return shape, so return-value explanation is not needed. But with an optional parameter at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no explanation of league_id semantics, the description leaves a material gap for an agent deciding how to call it.
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 sole parameter league_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell from either source whether null means the current/default league, what identifier format is expected, or whether the parameter is truly optional in practice.
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?
Names the resource and enumerates what the overview contains (name, competition, members, settings), making purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling list_leagues or signal when one should be used over the other.
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?
Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_leagues. The implied usage is only that this retrieves a league overview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.