teams_get_teamFetch detailed information for a single team, including standing summary, overall record, venue, and next scheduled event. Provide the sport, league, and team ID.
Fetch detailed information for a single team including standing summary, overall record, venue, and next scheduled event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | Yes | ||
| league | Yes | ||
| 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, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content shape of the response, which is useful, but says nothing about failure modes for an unknown team_id, league scoping behavior, or data freshness.
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 that opens with the verb and enumerates the payload with no filler. Efficient, though the enumeration is arguably loose enough that a shorter phrase would carry the same signal.
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 correctly compensates by naming the fields returned. However, for a 3-required-parameter tool with zero schema coverage it leaves parameter usage entirely unexplained, so an agent knows what comes back but not how to construct the call.
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?
All three parameters (sport, league, team_id) are required and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions none of them — no ID format, no valid league/sport values, no indication that league and sport must be consistent with the team. This is a real gap for a 3-param lookup.
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?
Specific verb (fetch) plus resource (single team) and an enumeration of the returned content (standing summary, record, venue, next event). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from teams_list_teams, but the description never names that sibling, so differentiation relies on inference.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'single team' suggests this is the lookup-by-id counterpart to teams_list_teams, and the team-scoped sibling names (roster, depth chart, statistics) imply this is the base team object. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.