Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kenpom

kenpom

by omalleyandy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

kenpom_matchup

Compare two college basketball teams head-to-head using key metrics like efficiency and tempo. Analyze strengths and weaknesses for upcoming games.

Instructions

Compare two teams head-to-head with key metrics side by side. Great for analyzing upcoming games.

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": {
      "team1": "<team1>",
      "team2": "<team2>"
    },
    "name": "kenpom_matchup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
team1YesFirst team name (e.g., 'Duke')
team2YesSecond team name (e.g., 'North Carolina')
seasonNoSeason year (default: current)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as data freshness, error handling (e.g., missing teams), or specific metrics returned. It only vaguely mentions 'key metrics'.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core purpose, the second provides usage context. No redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and only two sentences, the description is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool. It does not explain the returned metrics, format, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (team1, team2, season). The description adds minimal extra value beyond reinforcing the team parameters and implying season defaults.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('compare') and resource ('two teams head-to-head'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kenpom_ratings or kenpom_top_teams which focus on single-team or aggregated data.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives usage context ('Great for analyzing upcoming games'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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