Fetch metadata for a Sleeper fantasy football draft by ID, including type, status, rounds, and team count.
Fetch a Sleeper draft's metadata (type, status, rounds, team count).
Args: draft_id: The Sleeper draft ID (numeric string).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'Fetch' implies read-only, and naming the returned fields adds some behavioral context. It says nothing about behavior for an invalid or nonexistent draft_id, rate limits, or whether a live draft's data is fresh — gaps that matter for a stateful sports API.
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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted prose. The 'Args:' block is slightly boilerplate against a one-parameter schema, but the format hint inside it earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read. However, the presence of get_draft_state and get_draft_picks makes disambiguation essential and it is absent, leaving an agent to guess which call yields draft status versus picks.
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 0% (the schema only repeats 'Draft Id'), but the description compensates partially by specifying 'numeric string', which is genuinely useful format info. It does not say where to obtain the ID or what happens if it is malformed, so compensation is incomplete.
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+resource ('Fetch a Sleeper draft's metadata') with the returned fields enumerated (type, status, rounds, team count). It does not differentiate itself from the close siblings get_draft_state and get_draft_picks, whose scope overlaps on 'status' and draft data.
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 statement of when to use this versus get_draft_state or get_draft_picks, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid league/draft ID from another call). Usage is only implied by the word 'metadata'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.