sleeper_get_league_usersRetrieve all managers in a Sleeper league with display names and team names, and optionally select which fields to return for a given league ID.
Get all users (managers) in a league with display names and team names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| league_id | Yes | League id |
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 safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description adds the return payload shape (display names, team names), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or empty/missing leagues. Adequate rather than rich.
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 sentence with zero filler; the resource and the returned data are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essentials and states what comes back. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty league, pagination) and explicit sibling routing, neither of which is critical here.
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%, so both parameters (league_id, fields) are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description hints at which fields exist, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's 'comma-separated' note.
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 (all users/managers) and scope (in a league), and it even names the returned fields (display names, team names). The parenthetical '(managers)' disambiguates 'users' against the sibling sleeper_get_user, which returns a single user.
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?
No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to prefer this over sleeper_get_user_leagues or sleeper_get_league_rosters, which likely also expose manager/team names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.