fantasy-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Matchup

get_matchup

Retrieve head-to-head matchup for current or chosen week, showing scores, projections, win probability, and roster details to see who you face and if you're ahead.

Instructions

Return the user's head-to-head matchup for the current week (or a given week).

Use this for "am I winning?", "who am I playing?", or "should I have started X?". week defaults to the current matchup period (current_week); pass an earlier week for a final result or next week's number for a preview with projections. There is no per-player game-state field: points of 0.0 may mean the player has not played yet OR played and scored nothing -- do not claim to know which.

Top level: week; status (UPCOMING, IN_PROGRESS, or FINAL); is_home; my_team; opponent. Each team has: team_id, name, abbrev, score (fantasy points so far this week), projected (ESPN's live projection for the week's final score, or for a future week the sum of starters' player projections -- see projected_source: "espn" | "sum_of_starters" | null), win_probability (0-1, may be null), and roster. Each roster row has the same fields as get_my_team (player_id, name, position, slot, pro_team, injury_status) plus points (scored so far this week) and projected (ESPN's projection for this player this week; null if unavailable). Only rows whose slot is not BENCH or IR count toward score.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`week`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.1Sep 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / week

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

First observedv0.2.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral details: the lack of a per-player game-state field, the ambiguity of 0.0 points, the meaning of projected_source, possible null win_probability, and roster field nuances. It also explains how scoring works (non-BENCH/IR slots), which is critical for correct interpretation.

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?

The description is well-structured: a lead sentence with purpose and usage examples, followed by a clear breakdown of the top-level and nested fields. Every sentence adds value, covering semantics, edge cases, and data interpretation without redundancy. Despite length, it is efficient for the complexity it addresses.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is comprehensive: it explains the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, output structure (including nested objects), edge cases, and data interpretation pitfalls. With an output schema present, the description still adds critical context about field meaning and ambiguity, making it complete for correct usage.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the only parameter, but the description thoroughly explains the 'week' parameter: defaulting to current matchup period, passing earlier weeks for final results, and next week for previews with projections. This far exceeds the schema's minimal definition and fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('head-to-head matchup') and immediately provides concrete use-case examples ('am I winning?', 'who am I playing?'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_my_team by focusing on the matchup context, and the detailed output structure further differentiates it.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool via the example questions and explains the week parameter semantics (default current, earlier for final, next for preview). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context makes the appropriate usage clear.

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

Deploy Server