games_get_game_situationFetch real-time game situation details—down, distance, yardline, possession, red zone, and clock—for a specified ESPN event and competition.
Fetch real-time game situation (down, distance, yardline, possession, red zone, clock) via ESPN Core API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | Yes | ||
| league | Yes | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| competition_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds that data is "real-time" and sourced from the ESPN Core API, which hints at freshness and upstream dependency, but says nothing about behavior when the event is not live or how missing situations are returned.
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 that packs the resource, the returned field list, and the data source with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description leaves the entire input contract opaque — an agent cannot tell what values are valid for sport/league or how event_id is obtained. It compensates only by listing returned fields; input-side guidance is absent.
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 0% across four parameters (sport, league, event_id, competition_id), and the description documents none of them. It neither clarifies accepted values for sport/league nor explains what event_id or the optional competition_id identify, so the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 a specific verb (fetch) and resource (real-time game situation) and enumerates the concrete fields returned — down, distance, yardline, possession, red zone, clock — which clearly separates it from siblings like games_get_play_by_play or games_get_game_summary. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 word "real-time" implies this is the live/in-progress snapshot, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus games_get_play_by_play, games_get_game_summary, or games_get_scoreboard. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.