games_get_team_scheduleFetch a specific team's full season schedule and historical game results, including opponents, scores, dates, home/away status, and event IDs.
Fetch full season schedule and historical game results for a specific team, including opponents, scores, dates, home/away status, and event IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | Yes | ||
| league | Yes | ||
| season | No | ||
| team_id | Yes |
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 value by disclosing the shape of the returned data (opponents, scores, dates, home/away, event IDs), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about season defaulting, result volume, or pagination.
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 with no filler; the resource and payload are stated immediately. It is efficient, though it spends its only clause on return fields rather than the usage/parameter gaps that matter more.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully describes what comes back, which covers the return-value burden. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations about data volume or defaults, the absence of any parameter or season-default guidance leaves real gaps.
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, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at 'team' (team_id) and 'season schedule' (season) but never explains sport/league values, nor that season is optional and nullable with a null default meaning the current season.
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 ('full season schedule and historical game results for a specific team'), and enumerates the returned fields (opponents, scores, dates, home/away, event IDs). It is clearly distinguishable from scoreboard/standings siblings by being team-scoped, though it never names an alternative to contrast with.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this is preferable to games_get_scoreboard or teams_get_athlete_gamelog, and no note on prerequisites or that 'season' defaults to the current season when omitted. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.