Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
liga-record-mcp

liga-record-mcp

by manuelcralves
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_squad

Retrieve the current 23-player squad with player costs and data freshness timestamp to validate lineups and check contracts.

Instructions

The 23 players under contract, with the money around them.

Carries as_of: say how fresh the data is rather than presenting a stored squad as live.

Tool call template

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": "get_squad"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: the data carries an `as_of` timestamp, indicating the squad data may be stored and not live. This warns the agent not to present it as current, which is valuable context beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two short sentences. The first sentence is a noun phrase but efficient. The second sentence adds the crucial freshness caveat. It loses one point because the first sentence is grammatically incomplete, though it conveys the essential scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the content (23 players with money) and the main behavioral nuance (as_of freshness). It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. It is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description mentions `as_of` but that is clearly a field in the output data, not a parameter. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (the 23 players under contract) and the associated money, but it lacks an explicit verb and doesn't distinguish from sibling tool search_squad. The tool name 'get' implies retrieval, but the description itself is a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_squad or get_player. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools