teams_get_athlete_bioRetrieve an athlete's biography by sport, league, and athlete ID, including birthplace, college, draft round and pick, experience, physical measurements, and background.
Fetch detailed athlete biography including birthplace, college, draft round and pick, experience, physical measurements, and background.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | Yes | e.g. basketball | |
| league | Yes | e.g. nba, eng.1 | |
| athlete_id | Yes |
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, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful context that the payload is biographical fields, but says nothing about how current the data is, what happens when an athlete_id is unknown, or response shape.
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 field enumeration is dense but directly useful. It could be trimmed only marginally.
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 enumerates the returned biography fields, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide relevance. The missing athlete_id guidance and lack of sibling routing keep it from a 5.
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 coverage is 67%: sport and league carry example values, but athlete_id has no description at all and the description text adds no parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work but one required parameter remains undocumented anywhere.
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 (athlete biography) and enumerates the returned fields, which visibly distinguishes it from siblings like teams_get_athlete_stats, teams_get_athlete_gamelog and teams_get_athlete_overview. It does not explicitly name the nearest siblings, so it stops 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the adjacent teams_get_athlete_overview, stats, gamelog or splits tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that 'bio' means biographical background rather than performance data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.