Skip to main content
Glama
lacausecrypto

Sports Hub MCP Server

nhl: Get schedule

nhl_get_schedule
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the NHL schedule for a specific date to view all games, start times, teams, and venues.

Instructions

Get the NHL schedule for a given date. Returns all games, start times, teams, and venues.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoDate in YYYY-MM-DD format (defaults to today)
fieldsNoKeys to keep (comma-separated).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.1
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Keys to keep (comma-separated).",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what comes back (all games, start times, teams, venues), but says nothing about pagination, date-range limits, or off-season/empty-day behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place because there is no output schema to explain the payload.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the action, the date scoping, and the shape of the return value. Only the league-wide vs team-schedule distinction and any empty-result behavior are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the YYYY-MM-DD pattern and today default. The phrase 'for a given date' reinforces the date parameter but adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema, and the fields parameter is unmentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (get the NHL schedule) plus the scoping dimension (a given date), which is enough to distinguish it from stat/draft siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely named nhl_get_team_schedule, leaving the agent to infer the league-wide vs team-scoped distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never mentions that this is the league-wide daily slate nor points to nhl_get_team_schedule or nhl_get_scores for the alternative views the agent will likely need.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools