mlb_get_game_boxscoreFetch an MLB game's box score, including full batting and pitching stats for both teams, using the gamePk ID.
Get the box score for a game with full batting and pitching stats for both teams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| game_pk | Yes | The unique game ID (gamePk) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / fieldsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Keys to keep (comma-separated).",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the content scope ('batting and pitching stats for both teams') but says nothing about freshness, partial/in-progress games, or payload size for a stats-heavy endpoint.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource leads and the payload description follows. It is efficient, though extremely short for a tool with a rich sibling set.
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 no output schema, the description does briefly indicate what is returned (batting and pitching stats for both teams), which is adequate at a high level. However, it omits routing guidance against mlb_get_game, mlb_get_game_linescore, and mlb_get_game_play_by_play, which is the main missing piece for correct tool selection.
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 game_pk and fields are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for game_pk and never mentions the fields projection parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (box score for a game) and adds scope: 'full batting and pitching stats for both teams.' This implicitly distinguishes it from mlb_get_game_linescore and mlb_get_game_play_by_play, but it never names those siblings or explains the distinction explicitly.
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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative boxscore/landing/play-by-play tools. The only hint of prerequisite is the phrase 'for a game,' implying a game_pk sourced elsewhere, but this is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.