get_sports_teams_for_providerFetches sports team data from a specified data provider, letting you query teams by league or team IDs for market and event workflows.
Fetch sports teams data for a specific provider
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond restating that this is a fetch operation; it does not mention provider-specific constraints, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no provider is supplied.
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?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity leaves important sibling differentiation and usage context unstated.
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 tool is relatively simple and the annotations plus schema cover most operational details. However, the description does not resolve the ambiguity with the sibling get_sports_teams or clarify that the provider parameter is optional in the schema despite the 'specific provider' phrasing.
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 nested query object's league, teamIds, and provider fields are already documented in the schema. The description only reiterates the provider scope and adds no extra meaning about the league or teamIds filters, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('sports teams data') plus a scope ('for a specific provider'). It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling get_sports_teams beyond the name-level qualifier.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_sports_teams, get_all_sports, or other sports-related siblings. The phrase 'for a specific provider' implies provider-scoped usage, but no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.