teams_get_team_depth_chartFetch a team's depth chart to identify positional starters and backups, helping evaluate starting status and backup 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 | ||
| 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 readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety and caching profile is fully covered. The description adds no further behavior (no mention of freshness, rate limits, or what happens for teams without a chart). With the annotation bar fully met by structured data, this is baseline acceptable.
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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a parenthetical that adds concrete domain meaning. No wasted words.
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?
The purpose is fully captured and annotations cover the safety profile, but with 0% schema coverage for all three required parameters and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent guessing about input formats. Adequate for selecting the tool, incomplete for invoking it correctly.
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 0% – sport, league, and team_id have no descriptions anywhere and the description offers no guidance on their expected formats (e.g., is league 'NBA' or 'nba'? is sport 'basketball'?). For a 3-param required tool with zero schema documentation, the description should compensate but does not.
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 precise resource 'team depth chart', with a concrete domain example (QB1/QB2, RB1/RB2) that distinguishes it from siblings like teams_get_team_roster and teams_get_team_statistics. An agent immediately understands this returns positional starter/backup hierarchies.
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?
The stated purpose ('evaluate starting status and backup substitution impacts') implies when to reach for this tool, but no explicit when-not or alternative routing is given. Sibling tools like teams_get_team_roster are not mentioned, so the agent must infer the distinction from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.