ESPN Fantasy MCP

get_league_snapshot

Fetch league settings, teams, rosters, schedule, and matchup data for an ESPN fantasy football league using league ID and season.

Instructions

Get league settings, teams, rosters, schedule, and matchup data.

This is read-only. Use the league ID visible in the ESPN Fantasy URL.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "league_id": "<league_id>",
      "season": "<season>"
    },
    "name": "get_league_snapshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`season`	Yes
`league_id`	Yes
`scoring_period_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, which is a key safety trait, and offers a hint on sourcing the league ID. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or any potential rate limits, though the output schema partially covers returns.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only note is concise. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain two of three parameters and offers no usage guidance. For a snapshot tool with multiple data types, this is insufficient to guide an agent effectively, especially without annotations.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It provides a meaningful hint for league_id (source from URL) but says nothing about season or scoring_period_id, leaving their purpose and format unexplained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('league snapshot') and enumerates the data types included (settings, teams, rosters, schedule, matchup data). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like get_team_roster (specific team) and get_free_agents (free agents) by covering the whole league, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It only mentions that it is read-only and provides a hint about the league ID source, but does not state conditions for choosing this over get_team_roster or get_free_agents, nor any exclusions.

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

Deploy Server