games_get_play_by_playFetch granular play-by-play sequences with clock, downs, distance, yardage, and scoring flags from ESPN Core API for a given sport, league, and event.
Fetch granular play-by-play sequence with clock, downs, distances, yardage, and scoring flags via ESPN Core API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that data comes from the ESPN Core API, but it is silent on pagination behavior despite the tool exposing page/limit parameters, which is the main behavioral gap.
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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is well sized, though the brevity is partly a symptom of missing information rather than pure economy.
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 fetch tool with a fully-typed schema and safe annotations, the description covers purpose and content adequately; deeper parameter or pagination detail is a nice-to-have rather than a blocker for correct invocation.
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 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, and it explains none of them. It names returned data fields (clock, downs, yardage) rather than clarifying sport/league/event_id/competition_id, pagination defaults, or the distinction between required and optional inputs.
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 ('granular play-by-play sequence') and enumerates the returned content (clock, downs, distances, yardage, scoring flags), which clearly separates it from aggregate siblings like games_get_game_summary. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, games_get_game_situation.
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 guidance on when to choose this tool over games_get_game_summary, games_get_game_situation, or games_get_scoreboard, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.