openliga_get_tableRetrieve league standings for a specified league and season to view team rankings.
Get the league table / standings for a league and season.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| season | Yes | Season year, e.g. '2023' | |
| league_shortcut | Yes | League shortcut, e.g. 'bl1' |
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, but the description adds nothing on top: no note on required league shortcut validity, season format handling, standings ordering, or what happens on an unknown league/season.
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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse given the unresolved gaps, but as a conciseness measure it is clean.
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 full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, a one-liner is close to adequate. However, with no output schema and no mention of the fields parameter or season formatting, an agent lacks the context needed to invoke it optimally.
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% and all three parameters (league_shortcut, season, fields) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates 'league and season' and adds no extra semantics, notably omitting the optional fields projection parameter.
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 and resource ('Get the league table / standings') and scopes it to a league and season. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like openliga_get_matches_by_league_season or openliga_get_top_scorers, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as sportsdb_get_standings or sportsrc_get_table, which occupy the same functional niche. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.