Resolve player face images and team logos for esports data. Provide sport, player, or team details to get direct media links.
Resolve player faces + team logos. Same links shape as props (player_image, team_logo).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | ||
| sport | Yes | ||
| player | No | ||
| team_id | No | ||
| opponent | No | ||
| player_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says media is 'resolved' and that the links match the props shape; it does not disclose side effects, whether it performs network fetches, what happens for missing images, or how output is structured beyond those two fields.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence followed by a short shape hint; it front-loads the core purpose before the output detail. It loses a point only because 'props' is internal jargon and the meaning of 'same links shape' is not self-contained.
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?
With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this definition is too sparse for an agent to call the tool correctly in all cases. Missing are selection rules among player/team/opponent, whether both faces and logos are returned together, and the exact return format.
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% and the description does not explain the six parameters. The terms player, team, opponent, and the associated IDs imply which params correspond to faces vs. logos, but the description never states the required sport, the role of opponent, or whether to prefer IDs or names.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and names the two resources it returns (player faces, team logos), so an agent can identify it as a media-resolution helper. It is distinguishable from data-heavy siblings like get_player or get_props, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call get_media instead of get_player, get_player_snapshot, get_props, or other tools that may include image fields. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, so an agent must infer when media resolution is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.