get_sports_playersFetch and filter sports players by abbreviation, name, ID, team, league, or provider reference, with pagination for exploring player data.
Fetch sports players, filterable by abbreviation, name, id, team, or provider reference
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Query parameters and pagination; use the exact field names shown. |
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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that: it says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or the conditional constraints (league only honored with a provider filter, providerPlayerId requires provider) that live only in the schema.
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 resource is stated first and the filters follow. Minor imprecision in calling the provider-player-id pair 'provider reference' rather than matching the schema field names keeps it from a 5.
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 read-only nested-query lookup tool with no output schema and full schema description coverage, the definition is sufficient to call it correctly; the conditional filter rules are documented in the schema itself. Only the absence of any routing guidance against the many sibling lookup tools leaves a real gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates the same filter dimensions the schema already documents and adds no extra meaning, such as clarifying that 'provider reference' maps to the provider/providerPlayerId pair or explaining the limit/offset pagination model.
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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('sports players'), and the filter list clarifies the lookup dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get_sports_teams and get_sports_events by resource alone, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no mention of when to prefer get_sports_teams or provider-specific siblings. The listed filters weakly imply lookup scenarios but nothing tells the agent which tool to pick for a given task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.