sleeper_get_draft_picksRetrieve every pick in a Sleeper fantasy football draft, including round, pick number, roster, and player ID, using a draft_id from the league.
Get all picks for a draft (round, pick number, roster, player_id, metadata). Get a draft_id from sleeper_get_league (draft_id) or the league's drafts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Keys to keep (comma-separated). | |
| draft_id | Yes | Draft 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"
+}v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the returned pick records, which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about pagination, historical vs live drafts, or error behavior.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The core action and returned fields come first, followed by the input-sourcing hint.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and how to obtain the required ID. It omits whether picks reflect completed or in-progress drafts and any ordering guarantees, which are minor but real gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance semantics for draft_id (where to obtain it) that the schema does not provide, plus context on the pick fields returned, lifting it above baseline.
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 all picks for a draft') and enumerates the returned fields (round, pick number, roster, player_id, metadata). No sibling tool retrieves draft picks, so there is nothing to differentiate from, and the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Tells the agent exactly where the required draft_id comes from ('from sleeper_get_league (draft_id) or the league's drafts'), which is real usage context rather than a restatement. It does not cover when-not-to-use this tool or alternative paths, so it falls short of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.