nhl_get_game_boxscoreFetch a specific NHL game's box score to view goals, assists, shots, saves, and other stats.
Get the box score for a specific NHL game. Includes goals, assists, shots, saves, and other stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| game_id | Yes | NHL game ID (e.g. 2023020001) |
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 usefully adds that the response contains goals, assists, shots, and saves, but says nothing about required permissions, rate limits, or behavior for an invalid game_id.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by return content; nothing is wasted. "and other stats" is slightly vague filler but does not bloat the definition.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries some burden for describing returns, which it does only partially ("other stats" is undefined). With annotations covering safety and the schema covering inputs, the definition is adequate but leaves the return shape loosely specified.
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 100% – both game_id format and the fields projection key are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ("Get the box score for a specific NHL game") and enumerates the stat categories included, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from near-identical siblings such as mlb_get_game_boxscore or euroleague_get_game_boxscore, whose names differ only by league.
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 description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no note about which sibling to pick for related data (e.g. nhl_get_game_landing or nhl_get_game_play_by_play). Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.