squiggle_get_teamsRetrieve all current and historic AFL teams with IDs, abbreviations, debut and retirement years, and logo paths. Ideal for building team directories or historical analyses.
List all AFL teams in the Squiggle database (current and historic), with id, abbreviation, debut/retirement years, and logo path.
| 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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful scope detail that retired/historic teams are included alongside current ones, which affects result interpretation, but says nothing about ordering, size, or whether the call is cached.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then the scope, then the payload. No filler, no repetition of the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned attributes and clarifies that historic teams are included, which is the key ambiguity for a teams-list endpoint. It could go slightly further on result ordering or typical result count, but it is adequate for a zero-required-parameter read.
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% for the single optional 'fields' parameter, so the schema does the documenting and baseline is 3. The description lists concrete keys (id, abbreviation, debut/retirement years, logo path) that plausibly correspond to selectable fields, adding marginal value but not explaining the comma-separated projection syntax or a default.
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 (List) and resource (all AFL teams in the Squiggle database) plus scope qualifiers (current and historic) and the returned attributes. The 'AFL' qualifier distinguishes it from the many other get_teams/constructors siblings for MLB, NCAA, openLiga, Formula E, etc.
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 only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for a full team list when no filtering is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to a sibling alternative (e.g. squiggle_get_ladder for standings).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.