teams_get_team_rosterFetch active team roster and injury designations grouped by position, including jersey numbers, experience, position abbreviations, and coaching staff.
Fetch active team roster and injury designations grouped by position, including jersey numbers, experience, position abbreviations, and coaching staff.
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the useful content detail that results are grouped by position and include injury designations, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how 'active' is determined.
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 wasted filler; the content enumeration is slightly list-heavy but each item is informative. Structure is efficient and the core action leads the sentence.
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 reasonably enumerates returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, three required parameters at 0% schema coverage are left entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for an agent that must supply sport, league, and team_id 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 description coverage is 0% for all three parameters (sport, league, team_id), and the description provides no compensating meaning - it never explains accepted sport/league values, the format of team_id, or whether IDs come from teams_list_teams. The description does nothing to close a real parameter gap.
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 ('active team roster and injury designations') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling teams_get_team_depth_chart, which is also a positional roster view.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teams_get_team_depth_chart, teams_get_team, or teams_get_team_statistics, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer the selection condition from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.