mlb_get_game_play_by_playRetrieve MLB play-by-play data for a specific game, including every at-bat and pitch, by passing the game ID; optionally filter returned fields.
Get play-by-play data for a specific game including all at-bats and pitches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| game_pk | Yes | The unique game ID (gamePk) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content disclosure ('all at-bats and pitches'), which is useful, but says nothing about return volume, pagination or ordering for what is typically a large payload.
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 states resource and included content; no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient: the agent knows what it fetches and what safety profile applies. The only gap is any hint about the size/shape of the returned play-by-play payload.
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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or semantics detail beyond what the schema already provides (it does not explain the 'fields' key-filtering parameter 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?
Specific verb (get) plus resource (play-by-play data for a specific game) with the added scope 'all at-bats and pitches'. It is distinguishable from mlb_get_game_boxscore and mlb_get_game_linescore by resource name, but the description never explicitly contrasts them.
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 implied: 'for a specific game' signals that a game_pk is required, and the schema confirms it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or pointer to the sibling tools that return other game views.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.