games_get_league_groupsFetch conference, division, and group hierarchies for a sport league to understand its organizational structure. Provide sport and league to get the breakdown.
Fetch league conference, division, and structural group hierarchies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | Yes | e.g. basketball | |
| league | Yes | e.g. nba, eng.1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / league / descriptionAdded value: +"e.g. nba, eng.1"Input schema / properties / sport / descriptionAdded value: +"e.g. basketball"v1.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns conference, division, and structural group hierarchies, which is useful content context but does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given the rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description states the data domain clearly. However, with no output schema, it could better describe the return structure, leaving a minor gap for an agent that needs to know the response shape.
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%: both sport and league have descriptions with examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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 the resource ('league conference, division, and structural group hierarchies'), which clearly conveys the tool's function. It is less explicit about how it differs from related sibling tools like games_get_standings or games_get_rankings, so it falls short of a 5.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The purpose hints at its use for retrieving structural hierarchies, but there is no explicit context for selecting it over siblings like games_get_standings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.