mlb_get_game_linescoreFetch the inning-by-inning line score for an MLB game using its gamePk to view each team's scoring.
Get the line score (inning-by-inning scoring summary) for a game.
| 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 by structured data. The description adds only the definition of 'line score'; it says nothing about response shape, pagination, or whether a game must be in progress/finished, which is the kind of context an annotation can't provide.
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 parenthetical earns its place by defining a sport-specific term the agent may not know.
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?
For a simple read tool the annotations plus schema cover most needs, but with no output schema the description could have sketched what a linescore contains (per-inning runs per team) or noted game state requirements. It stops at the definition.
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%, with game_pk and fields both documented inline, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no extra meaning about the game_pk format or the fields projection syntax, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (line score) and disambiguates the term with a parenthetical definition ('inning-by-inning scoring summary'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like mlb_get_game_boxscore or mlb_get_game_play_by_play, which an agent will likely see side by side.
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 prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the inning-by-inning view rather than the boxscore or play-by-play.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.