mlb_get_teamsList MLB teams with IDs, names, venues, divisions, and leagues by season. Filter fields and sport ID to get only the team data needed.
List MLB teams with their IDs, names, venues, divisions, and leagues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| season | No | Season year | |
| sportId | No | Sport ID (1=MLB) |
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 and the description's burden is lighter. The description adds the shape of the returned records (IDs, names, venues, divisions, leagues), but says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether the list is season-dependent despite a season parameter.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the returned attributes follow. Nothing needs to be trimmed.
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 zero-required-parameter reference list with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is not clarifying the interaction between the season/sportId parameters and the returned team set.
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 all three parameters (fields, season, sportId) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how fields filtering or season selection affects the output.
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?
Names a specific verb (List) and resource (MLB teams) and enumerates the payload (IDs, names, venues, divisions, leagues), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other team-listing siblings such as espn_get_teams, openliga_get_teams, or sportsdb_search_teams, though the MLB prefix and the venue/division/league fields do implicitly scope it.
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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative team-lookup tools. Usage is only inferable from the tool being a flat reference list, so the agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.