ncaa_get_gameFetch detailed NCAA game information by sport and game ID, including play-by-play, box score, and player or team stats.
Get detailed information about a specific NCAA game, including play-by-play, box score, and stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sport | Yes | Sport name, e.g. "football", "basketball" | |
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| game_id | Yes | NCAA game ID |
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 readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior. The description adds that the response includes play-by-play, box score, and stats, which is useful content context, but it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or return shape; with annotations carrying the safety profile this is a moderate addition.
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?
Single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the action and the content scope immediately.
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-only lookup with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key content scope (play-by-play, box score, stats). It could say more about the optional fields parameter or sibling alternatives, but no output schema exists and the core call is adequately framed.
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 the schema already defines sport, game_id, and fields. The description does not add syntax or constraints beyond identifying the tool as game-specific, matching the baseline of 3 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?
Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific NCAA game') and enumerates the detailed content included (play-by-play, box score, stats). It does not name any sibling endpoint, so explicit differentiation is left to inference, but the 'specific game' scope separates it from scoreboard/schedule tools.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving details about one game but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like ncaa_get_scoreboard or ncaa_get_stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.