games_get_play_by_playGet detailed play-by-play data including clock, downs, distances, yardage, and scoring flags via ESPN Core API to analyze game flow.
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 | e.g. basketball | |
| league | Yes | e.g. nba, eng.1 | |
| event_id | Yes | ||
| competition_id | No |
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 cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds value by disclosing the granular content fields returned (clock, downs, distances, yardage, scoring flags), but does not mention pagination behavior despite page/limit parameters, nor auth or rate limits. Adds useful context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
Annotations carry the safety profile and the description lists returned data, but with 33% schema coverage, no output schema, and no usage guidance, missing parameter explanations (especially pagination and optional identifiers) leave gaps for a 6-parameter tool.
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 only 33% (sport and league only), leaving event_id, page, limit, and competition_id undocumented. The description does not explain any input parameter or compensate for the coverage gap, instead listing output fields.
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') with concrete details (clock, downs, distances, yardage, scoring flags). No sibling tool in the list covers play-by-play, so it is inherently distinguished from scoreboard, summary, situation, etc.
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?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The phrase 'via ESPN Core API' is source context, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.