Retrieve baseball fixtures and results, filtering by team and played status to analyze matchups and outcomes.
Fixtures and results. Optionally filter by team, and by whether the game has been played.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| played | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns fixtures and results and can be filtered; it does not mention pagination (the 'limit' parameter), default behavior, output format, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent guessing about important runtime behavior.
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 description is a single efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose and then mentions filters. While it is terse, it is not padded, and its brevity is appropriate for a straightforward retrieval tool.
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?
Given three parameters (one with a default), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'limit' parameter, what a default of 30 implies, whether results are sorted, or what the response structure looks like. An agent would need to make assumptions or have external knowledge to invoke this tool reliably.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'team' filters by team and 'played' filters by whether the game has been played, but it completely omits the 'limit' parameter, leaving its purpose and default unknown. Even for the covered parameters, it lacks specifics like accepted formats or meaning beyond the filter intent.
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 states the tool provides 'Fixtures and results,' which clearly indicates it retrieves schedule information. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'standings' or 'roster' even though it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'fetch.' The purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to understand the core function.
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 mentions optional filters ('by team' and 'by whether the game has been played') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would not know if this is the right tool for a specific request without additional context, especially given the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.