nhl_get_draftRetrieve current NHL draft rankings and prospect details to analyze upcoming picks. Filter results by specific fields for focused scouting.
Get the current NHL draft rankings and prospect information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). |
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"
+}v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and caching profile is covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral signal is the scope word 'current', which implies no historical draft data; it says nothing about freshness, permissions, or result shape. Modest added value over annotations.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but it is efficiently structured.
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 tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't clarify what 'rankings' versus 'prospect information' actually returns, whether past drafts are available, or how the fields projection applies, which leaves the agent with some ambiguity.
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% for the single 'fields' parameter, so the schema already documents that it takes comma-separated keys to keep. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('NHL draft rankings and prospect information'), so an agent knows this returns draft/prospect data rather than player or standings data. It does not name a sibling or explain how it relates to them, but the resource is distinctive enough within the NHL tool set that confusion is unlikely.
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?
Usage is implied by the word 'current' (this is the live/upcoming draft view) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that historical drafts are unsupported, and no alternative named. The agent can infer the context from the resource name but must guess the boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.