Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Flash Props API

Flash Props API

by iFan6oy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get props for a game

get_game_props

Retrieve player props for any game using its event ID. Filter by sport or specific stats to narrow results.

Instructions

Get player props for one game by event id (from list_games; ids are prefixed ud- or bv-).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "eventId": "<eventId>"
    },
    "name": "get_game_props"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sportNoSport id. Defaults to the in-season sport.
statsNoComma-separated stat filter, e.g. points,rebounds
eventIdYesEvent id, e.g. bv-26839935

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the tool retrieves props but omits details about return format, read-only nature, or any side effects. The event ID format hint adds minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, well-structured sentence delivers the core information without redundancy. Every word adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool lacks an output schema, and the description gives no hint about the return structure or field details. For a tool that outputs props, this is a notable gap. It is minimally complete for a simple get operation but insufficient for confident use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond noting the eventId prefix, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves player props for a single game using an event ID. It specifies the source of IDs (list_games) and the prefix format, distinguishing it from siblings like scan_props.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies using list_games first to obtain an event ID with the correct prefix, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like scan_props.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools