teams_get_team_depth_chartFetch a team's depth chart to see positional starters and backups, so you can evaluate starting status and substitution impact.
Fetch team depth chart showing positional starter and backup hierarchies (e.g. QB1, QB2, RB1, RB2) to evaluate starting status and backup substitution impacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | Yes | e.g. basketball | |
| league | Yes | e.g. nba, eng.1 | |
| team_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, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned data (starter/backup positional hierarchies), but says nothing about coverage, freshness, or auth needs beyond that.
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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It could be marginally improved by appending the team_id/sport/league expectations, but it wastes nothing.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description valuably describes the return structure (QB1/QB2 hierarchies). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it, though the undocumented team_id parameter is a residual gap.
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?
Three required parameters (sport, league, team_id) at 67% schema coverage, yet the description mentions none of them. With team_id undocumented in the schema, the description should have compensated by clarifying identifier expectations, but adds no parameter meaning at all.
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?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Fetch team depth chart') and clarifies the payload with concrete examples like QB1/QB2, RB1/RB2. It is clearly distinguishable from teams_get_team_roster, though it never names that sibling explicitly to sharpen the contrast.
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?
It gives an intended purpose ('to evaluate starting status and backup substitution impacts'), which implies when the tool is useful. However, it offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives against nearby roster/stat tools, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.