teams_list_teamsFetch all active teams for a specified sport and league, returning IDs, names, abbreviations, locations, and colors to populate team lists and data workflows.
Fetch all active teams in a given sport and league, returning team IDs, names, abbreviations, locations, and colors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | Yes | ||
| league | 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, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful traits beyond that: the result set is filtered to 'active' teams only, and it enumerates the returned fields (IDs, names, abbreviations, locations, colors) in the absence of an output schema.
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 sentence with zero filler; the core action and scope are front-loaded and the return fields are appended compactly rather than padded into extra sentences.
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 does useful work by listing return fields, and it notes the active-teams filter. However, with 0% schema coverage and no enums on two required parameters, the definition omits the one thing the agent most needs: valid values for sport and league.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names 'sport' and 'league' implicitly but gives no accepted value formats, casing, or examples (e.g. 'nba' vs 'basketball'), leaving the agent unable to supply valid values with confidence.
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 ('all active teams') with an explicit scope ('in a given sport and league'), which clearly separates it from singular siblings like teams_get_team and teams_search. It stops short of naming an alternative tool outright, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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 phrase 'all active teams in a given sport and league' implies the usage context (bulk listing for a sport/league pair), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to teams_search or teams_get_team for other needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.