Fetch current NFL scores from ESPN to check live game results and updates.
Get current NFL scores from ESPN.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "espn_nfl_scores"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered and the description does not contradict them. The description contributes the provenance (ESPN) and the freshness scope ("current"), but says nothing about response shape or whether scores are live-updating or 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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 and no parameters, the description is the only place an agent can learn what comes back — game list, team names, scores, quarter/clock status, or week/schedule scope. None of that is stated, so the agent cannot anticipate the return payload.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries all the input burden and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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+resource ("Get current NFL scores") plus the data source (ESPN), which cleanly separates it from the sport-variant siblings like espn_nba_scores and espn_mlb_scores. It is not explicitly contrasted with them, but the NFL qualifier makes the selection 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?
Only the word "current" hints at scope (live/recent games). There is no statement of when to use this versus espn_news or espn_team_info, no note that historical or future games are out of scope, and no preconditions named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.