Fetch current NHL scores from ESPN to check live game results and track hockey matchups.
Get current NHL 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_nhl_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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come from ESPN and are current, but does not mention freshness, live-vs-final behavior, or rate limits.
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?
The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It states the action, object, qualifier, and source efficiently.
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 no-parameter, read-only scores lookup, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the sport, source, and currency of the data. A minor gap is that it does not clarify whether "current" means today's games, live games, or latest finals, and there is no output schema to supplement that.
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?
There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a burden. The description does not need to explain input syntax, and the empty schema is consistent with the tool's simple lookup behavior.
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?
The description gives a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("current NHL scores") with the source ("ESPN"). It cleanly distinguishes this from sibling tools like espn_nfl_scores and espn_nba_scores by naming NHL 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?
The description clearly indicates the use case: retrieving current NHL scores. It does not spell out when to prefer this over siblings such as espn_news or espn_team_info, but the context is sufficiently clear for a simple read-only lookup tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.